Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (POSITION AT SHANGHAI).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has consulted with the French and American Governments with regard to the protection of the international settlement at Shanghai; and whether they are taking identical steps to safeguard the lives of its inhabitants?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): In this matter, as in all other important developments in China, His Majesty's Government have, as required by Article 7 of the Treaty relating to principles and policies concerning China signed at Washington on 6th February, 1922, communicated fully and frankly, not only with the French and United States Governments, but also with all the other Governments parties to that Treaty. Both France and the United States are adopting such measures for the defence of the lives of their nationals as they judge necessary in their respective circumstances.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reports in some newspapers are untrue—that the United States Government are acting independently, or are they acting in co-operation?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: They are taking independently such measures as they think right.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the fact that the American forces have not yet been landed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As far as I know, yes.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Do we understand that the United States are not co-operating with us?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The United States are acting independently in defence of their own interests, and will take such steps as they think necessary for the protection of their own nationals. There is no rivalry between the United States and ourselves. They are acting as an independent Power as they think proper.

Sir J. NALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply indicate that the United States are not prepared to take any action in defence of the nationals of other countries?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have not said that. If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the answers, he will find they are complete. I am a little disinclined to define the attitude of a foreign Power in unconsidered answers to supplementary questions.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I suppose our representatives at Shanghai have received instructions to secure the maximum amount of co-operation possible?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government throughout have endeavoured to act in harmony and in co-operation with other Powers, wherever possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that at the end of last week British troops marched out from the international concessions at Shanghai and occupied positions on Chinese territory beyond the boundaries of the concession, he will say what instructions have been given to the general officer commanding the troops and to the senior naval officer regarding the occupation of Chinese territory outside the concessions?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It would not be in the public interest to disclose the terms of the instructions issued to the officers commanding the British forces at Shanghai.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the significance of the fact that our troops are now occupying Chinese territory, and
is this House to have no explanation as to how that came about?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Mr. LOOKER: Is not the presence of British troops in the International Settlement at Shanghai welcomed by all the inhabitants there, including the large Chinese population, as it affords great protection in a difficult time?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to my question. Cannot some explanation be given for the occupation of this territory?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is another question on the Paper which raises that point more specifically.

Mr. LANSBURY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before advancing troops beyond the limits of the international concession at Shanghai, any request was made to the Chinese authorities either at Peking, Shanghai, or Hangkow for permission to occupy Chinese territory not leased or occupied in accordance with treaty agreements; and has any protest been received from the representatives of the Chinese nation?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in possession of detailed reports on the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government consider that they have a right to land troops in any country where they consider it necessary?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government consider that they have a right to land troops for the protection of British nationals when no protection can he afforded by the Government of the country concerned.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between this case and the case at Nicaragua? Is not the policy of His Majesty's Government best expressed in Bethmann Hollweg's statement that "necessity knows no law"?

Mr. STEPHEN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
Chinese troops from the north have entered Shanghai and their General, Marshal Chang Tsung-chang, permitted to take up his headquarters in the international settlement; and whether the Cantonese armies, if they arrive opposite the present British lines, will also be permitted to enter the city?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Some of General Chang Tsung-ehang's forces have, I understand, entered Shanghai. They have not entered the International Settlement, nor has General Chang established his military headquarters in the settlement. In the contingency foreshadowed in the second part of the question the action of the British forces will continue to be governed by the policy of complete neutrality and impartiality as between the contending Chinese forces which has been the consistent policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. MOSLEY: Does that mean that the Cantonese forces will be allowed to enter Shanghai?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It means what it says, Sir.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British troops have occupied Chinese territory outside the limits of the international settlement at Shanghai; and whether the troops of any other nation have occupied territory outside the limits of the settlement?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In view of the delicate situation which has arisen at Shanghai, British troops have taken up precautionary positrons along a defensive line partly outside the settlement limits. Italian forces are collaborating with the British forces in this operation, but I am unable to say whether Italian posts have actually been taken up beyond the limits of the settlement. It is this question I had in mind earlier. I thought it would answer the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). The occupation of these particular positions is dictated by the tactical necessities of the case.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the dictation military necessity, and, even if it be that, does it not constitute an infringement of territoriality and neutrality?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The purpose of sending troops to China was to protect British lives, and when danger arises the troops must be placed in the position in which they can effectively discharge their duty.

Rear-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Is it not a fact chat during the late Government British troops were occupying territory at Tientsin and Peking?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That was under the old Treaty.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause a map to be placed in the Library, so that Members of the House may see how far His Majesty's Government are invading Chinese territory?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that neither Northern troops nor Southern troops will be allowed within whatever territory is at present occupied by the British troops?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It is for the purpose of keeping armed forces or armed individuals, fugitives or stragglers from armies, out of the settlement and therefore avoiding the danger that would be inherent in that state of things to British lives, that these troops are there.

Sir BASIL PETO: In replying to these constant questions from the other side, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the sole purport of them is to provide ammunition against the Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — NICARAGUA (PROTECTION OF BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the civil war in Nicaragua, he has taken any steps to protect British interests which have been endangered in the fighting?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain the circumstances under which a British cruiser has been sent to Nicaragua; and whether there has been any danger or threat of danger to British subjects in the Nicaraguan Republic?

Mr. LANSBURY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that one of His Majesty's ships of wax has been ordered to Nicaragua, it is intended to land any armed forces for the protection of British nationals; and how many British nationals, whose lives may be endangered, are resident in that country?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I will answer these questions together.
On 3rd January, Mr. Patteson, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Managua, requested the United States Minister to extend to British subjects the benefit of any measures taken by the United States Government to protect United States citizens in Nicaragua. Similar protection had been forthcoming on the last occasion of disturbances in Nicaragua. On 28th January, on the inquiry of the United States Government, His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington confirmed this request. On 17th February, Mr. Patteson telegraphed that conditions were very menacing, and that the United States Minister could give no guarantee for the safety of British life and property in three of the principal towns. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government judged it their duty to order His Majesty's ship "Colombo" to proceed at once to Corinth, to serve as a base of refuge for British refugees if need arose. Should no such need arise, it is not intended that the vessel should remain for any length of time. There will be no landing, and it is, therefore, obvious that the matter of protection inland remains unaffected.
I have not the exact figures of the number of British nationals in Nicaragua, but I have seen the number estimated at 200. I am disposed to regard this as a conservative figure.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is to the Nicaraguan Government, as a member of the League of Nations, or to the United States Government, which is establishing a Protectorate, that it will be necessary in the future to apply for the protection of British subjects?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend must allow me to deprecate questions like that.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a hypothetical question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of Question 7; as to whether there is any actual danger to British subjects? Have any of our nationals been threatened?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. My answer was that, on the 17th February. Mr. Patteson telegraphed that conditions were very menacing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Might not that apply to Americans? Is there any threat to British people in Nicaragua?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There were conditions of disorder and fighting, which were menacing to strangers as well as to the native inhabitants of the towns.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not the fact that the British action has received the general approval of the United States?

Mr. J. HUDSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered Question 4, which asks whether any attempt will be made to back up the sending of this vessel to Nicaragua by landing troops?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have answered that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER TIME.

Colonel DAY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been reached or discussed between the Governments of Germany, Italy, and Great Britain with reference to summer time; whether a definite agreement has been signed between Great Britain, Belgium, France and Holland regulating the commencement of summer time and the return to normal time; and, if so, the exact dates in each case?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. As regards the first part of the question, the answer is in the negative. As regards the second part, no formal agreement on the subject of summer time has been signed by the countries named but, as a result of an interchange of views between the respec-
tive Governments, both France and Belgium have adopted the same starting and terminating dates for Summer Time as those fixed for this country by the Summer Time Act, 1925. In Holland different dates are fixed.

Colonel DAY: Can the Under-Secretary say whether any discussions have taken place with any other countries beside those mentioned?

Captain HACKING: No, Sir; I cannot without, notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

ZINOVIEFF LETTER.

Mr. LUMLEY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether anything has arisen, either in the recent reply from the Soviet Government or from any other source, which throws any doubt on the accuracy of the conclusion to which His Majesty's Government came, as stated by him in the House of Commons on 15th December, 1924, that the Zinovieff letter was not a forgery?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. After a careful examination of the evidence His Majesty's Government came to the definite conclusion in December, 1324, that the Zinovieff letter was not a forgery; and nothing has occurred since then to throw any doubt on the accuracy of that conclusion.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the original of the letter has ever been in the possession of the Cabinet?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Tim evidence as to the authenticity of the letter is conclusive.

Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the arrest by the Austrian Government of a person who has admitted forging that letter?

Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that the Leader of the Opposition admitted the authenticity of the letter?

Mr. STEPHEN: Is there any additional evidence before the present Government which was not before the last Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Two pieces of confirmatory evidence, as I have informed the House already, were available to the present Government which were not available to their predecessors.

Mr. J. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to submit this evidence to some impartial inquiry for a decision?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I am not. It is quite evident that there are sources of information, thoroughly trustworthy, but which would not be available if they were made public.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Why do you refuse to submit the matter to arbitration?

BRITISH NOTE.

Miss LAWRENCE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the speech of M. Kamanev, referred to in the note to the Soviet Government of the 23rd February, in which M. Kamanev stated that the Soviet Government devoted undue attention to the internal welfare of the union instead of concentrating its efforts upon revolution in foreign countries, is the speech reported in "Tzvestia" of the 5th November, in which M. Kamanev expressed similar views in opposition to a resolution of M. Stalin?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The particular speech in question was made al the Conference of the Communist. International in December last.

Miss LAWRENCE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that M. Kamanev expressed a similar view on 5th November, and that the resolution in support of it was entirely defeated?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I know that he has expressed these views more than once, but it is sufficient to cite the one occasion, which I did.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the reply to his note to the Russian Government, he is now prepared to cancel the trade agreement with Russia?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that there is to be a debate on this subject to-morrow, and I trust that my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to reserve my explanations of the policy of His Majesty's Government for that occasion.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: Is it in consequence of the trade agreement that Russian special stout is supplied in the bar?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SHIPS IN COMMISSION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to commission any additional men-of-war for service on stations other than China to replace the vessels sent to China recently; and which vessels is it proposed to commission or to bring up to full complement?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): Although the temporary transfer of a number of His Majesty's ships to China from other stations has greatly interfered with training and other fleet work on those stations, I trust that the conditions which have caused the despatch to China of the vessels in question will not be so prolonged as to make it necessary to commission additional vessels to replace them, and that no new factors will arise which might necessitate a modification of Admiralty policy in this respect.

Commander BELLAIRS: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number in full commission, and with reduced crews, of capital ships and cruisers as compared with July, 1914; and whether the fully commissioned ships have suffered any reduction of complements as compared with 1914?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the Capital ships and cruisers in commission with full crews, reduced crews or reserve crews respectively in July, 1914 and February, 1927. As regards the second part of the question, only two ships—the cruisers "Lowestoft" and "Birmingham"—of the 1914 Fleet are now in full commission. Their complements are larger now than in 1914.

Following is the statement:


STATEMENT showing capital ships and cruisers in full commission and with reduced crews in July, 1914 and February, 1927.


STATEMENT showing capital ships and cruisers in full commission and with reduced crews in July, 1914 and February, 1927.



Battle ships.
Battle Cruisers.
Cruisers.


July, 1914.





Full Crews
31
8
49


Reduced or Special Crews (including Second Fleet).
13
—
37


Third Fleet
16
—
27


February, 1927.





Full Crews
7
3
36


Reduced Crews
5
1
2


Reserve Crews
—
—
5

PERSONNEL (REDUCTION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the reduction in the naval personnel from July, 1914, when it stood at 146,047; what is the corresponding reduction from 53,550 in the dockyard personnel: whether the latter figure has been reduced to the same extent as the former; and, if not, will he state the reason?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As was stated in the reply of the 16th February to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, the personnel of the Navy on the 15th July, 1914, numbered 146,047 and on the 15th January, 1927, 101,434. The personnel of the Dockyards (Vote 8) at borne and abroad numbered 48,415 on 1st January, 1927, the latest date for which figures are available. It is anticipated that within the next few months the figure will be reduced by about 3,000. For reasons which have often been stated, the number of civilian staff whether at headquarters or at the dockyards cannot be proportionately related with those of naval personnel.

CHATHAM DOCKYARD (DISCHARGES).

Mr. ALBERY: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of pending discharges from Chatham Dockyard, whether he will take steps to facilitate the reemployment of these men in civil life by bringing their experience and qualifications to the notice of likely firms, and especially those who are Government con-
tractors; where such action results in men being obliged to move, with their families, to another part of the country, will he state if he is able to give any assistance to facilitate such moves; and, as regards any unskilled labour, will he notify any large local employers of these pending discharges and request that such men may be considered for any suitable vacancies?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): It will be the duty of the dockyard officers to supply particulars concerning the workmen discharged to the officers of the Ministry of Labour Employment Exchanges, so that they may do what is possible to assist the men to obtain other employment; but it is not proposed that the Admiralty should attempt to duplicate the functions of the Employment Exchanges and the Local Employment Committees working in connection with the Exchanges.

His MAJESTY'S SHIP "BERAVICK."

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that His Majesty's ship "Berwick" has been in the hands of a firm on the Tyne for repairs; that the ship has been sent to the Clyde to have the repairs effected; that the contractors have sent numbers of men from the Tyne to the Clyde to do the work, although there are 1,500 unemployed engineers in the latter area; whether the extra expenses which have been incurred in this transference of workmen from one area to another arc being met out of public funds; and, if so, what such expenses are?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am unable to understand the hon. Member's question. His Majesty's ship "Berwick" is under construction at Govan, and is not yet in commission.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: is it not the case that one of these cruisers was being repaired on the Tyne and then it was sent round to be finished on the Clyde, and that the contractors transferred a number of engineers from the Tyneside to the Clyde, where we have 1,500 engineers lying idle, but quite capable of doing that work? That was my question.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should like to know to what cruiser the hon. Member refers.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The "Berwick."

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have told the hon. Member that the "Berwick" is already at Govan, being built.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MIDDLESBROUGH.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 25.
asked the Minister el Labour the number of applications for extended benefit in the Middlesbrough area during the last three months; the number granted and refused; and similar figures for the corresponding period a year ago?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): During the three months ended 14th February, 1927, 18,043 applications for extended benefit were considered by the Middlesbrough Local Employment Committee, of which 16,480 were recommended for allowance and 1,583 for disallowance. The corresponding figures for the three months ended 8th February, 1926, were- 12,467 applications, 10,628 allowances and 1,839 disallowances.

BENEFIT PAYMENTS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed receiving standard benefit and the number receiving extended benefit at the present time, and the corresponding figures for a year ago?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics giving the numbers of persons receiving standard benefit and extended benefit respectively are not regularly compiled. A special inquiry made in March, 1926, showed that at that date 54 per cent. of the claims on which unemployment benefit was payable, were authorised for standard benefit and 46 per cent. for extended benefit. No further inquiry on this subject has since been made.

Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in the figures those cases where a man may have 30 stamps and may have been in work for 24 months, and yet may be denied benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not quite certain what the hon. Member means. Standard benefit would be given in those cases in which the benefit paid had been covered by the contributions already made.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are cases where no benefit has been paid, although over 30 stamps are shown? I got such a case this morning where a man has been cut off from the Exchange.

Sir A. STEELMAITLAND: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case of that kind, I will consider it, and communicate with him.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is it not the case that a man may have 38 stamps but if there are not 12 continuous weeks, he may get no benefit? Is not that the regulation?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member puts down a question of this kind on the Paper, I will consider it.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I would like to ask now if that is not the case under the regulations? I can furnish at least one instance where 38 stamps have been shown and benefit has been disallowed.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: 27.
asked the Minister or Labour the amounts or grants given out of Government funds to municipal or other public bodies in connection with unemployment schemes for each year since November, 1918?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having a statement prepared, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as practicable.

Mr. SHORT: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed on schemes assisted by the Unemployed Grants Committee on 31st December, 1926, as compared with 31st December, 1925, and the total expenditure involved?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of men employed on schemes assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee on the 24th December, 1926, was 15,727, as compared with 33,280 men employed on the 28th December, 1925.
The total estimated cost of schemes approved by the Committee during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1926, was £6,590,271, as compared with £20,969,436 during the year ended 31st December, 1925.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it the policy of the Government to reduce these schemes?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. SHORT: 32.
asked the Minister of labour whether he propose to increase the number of training centres for the unemployed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The question of the provision of further training facilities is at present under consideration.

Mr. SHORT: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of persons trained at the unemployed training centres during 1926 and the number absorbed in home industries and overseas, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of men who received a full course of training at these centres during 1926, or who left before completing the full course in order to take up employment, was 1,771. Of this number about 1,100 had by the end of 1926 obtained employment in this country, and 290 were placed on farms in the oversea Dominions.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. BARKER: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that G. T. Crisp, of 16, Hyde Place, Llanhilleth, Monmouthshire was allowed unemployment benefit, dated 16th August, 1926, by the court of referees; that the case was appealed against by the local insurance officer and referred to the umpire, who disallowed benefit; that Crisp was never notified to attend before the umpire, and the case was heard and decided in his absence; and will he therefore have the case re-opened so that Crisp can defend his claim to benefit as awarded by the court of referees?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the great majority of cases which come before the umpire the facts are estab-
lished by the written and oral evidence-tendered at the court of referees which sits locally and to which the applicant is summoned. In such a case it is not the practice of the umpire to hear the applicant orally unless there is a question of principle which has not previously been settled. In the present case the facts were stated by the applicant in his written appeal, he was heard orally by the court of referees and I understand that the umpire held, on the admitted facts, that he was disqualified for benefit. I may add that the umpire has power to reconsider his decision if an applicant brings forward new facts, and he has always been ready to do so in proper cases.

Mr. BARKER: Are we to understand that if a man has got a decision in his favour from the referees, his case can be re-tried by the umpire, and that he receives no notification and has no opportunity of making his case before the umpire?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand—but this is subject to verification —that the man in question knew that the case was being taken before the umpire, so that he had the right and the possibility of stating any further facts as he wished. As regards procedure, that is a matter for the umpire himself to determine and I understand that, up to now, the procedure which he has adopted for himself has been generally acquiesced in as being right and proper.

Mr. BARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was informed that his case was to come before the umpire and that he was waiting for notification of the hearing so that he could appear before the umpire himself and defend his claim, but no such notification was given?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That bears out what I said to the hon. Member—that the man was informed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He was informed that his case was going to the umpire. As far as I know, the whole procedure up to now has been meeting, and, I believe, is still meeting, with general concurrence, and the umpire, when he has the full facts before him, does not necessarily require the attendance of the parties at the hearing. I understand that has been the case consistently during
the past year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In any case, it is a matter for the umpire himself to determine what are the proper rules to apply to the hearing of the cases.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the practice of the umpire to notify those who have presented claims to be heard and decided by him of the date of the hearing; and, as that is the case, why was this man not notified of the date and time of hearing?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member has made a statement of fact. I think I am strictly correct in what I have said, but if the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) and the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) communicate with me, I will look into the matter again, to see if, by any chance, I have been inaccurate in any statement I have made. If I am, and if hon. Members wish to do so, they can raise the point again, but I do not think I have been inaccurate.

Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all the cases, amounting to some hundreds, which have been taken by the Workers' Union notification of time and place of hearing has been given in every instance?

Mr. SPEAKER: This question had better had put down again, when the hon. Member has seen the Minister.

Mr. BARKER: I will put the question down again.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour who decided that the recommendation of the Committee to pay unemployment benefit to R. Thomson, 319, Main Street, Alexandria, Dumbartonshire, should be disallowed, and by what authority; whether this man has the right of appeal; arid by what method?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This case was decided by the Department (for which of course I take full responsibility) under the authority given to the Minister by Act of Parliament. There is no statutory right of appeal by claimants in these cases, but if Mr. Thomson can bring forward fresh evidence in support of his claim, arrangements will be made for his case to be considered.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman want to put before this House such a statement as that a committee, having found in favour of a man and granted him his case, the manager of the Exchange or the insurance officer can rule out the committee's decision and disqualify the man from receiving the benefit granted him by the committee without that man having a right of appeal?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In all normal cases of extended benefit, the ultimate decision rests with the Minister, and in the vast majority of cases, as has been again and again stated in this House, I abide by the advice which is contained in the decisions and opinions at which the rota committees have arrived. In a certain number of cases, on review, that has not been done in a certain percentage of cases a decision that benefit should be granted has been disagreed with, as in other cases a decision not to give benefit has been disagreed with. That occurs only in a small number of cases, and this was one of them, but, as I say, at any time the anal decision lies with the Minister, and if a person thinks that injustice has been done and will communicate any facts to nee, I will see that they are carefully examined.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not this what is being done now? I am asking for a reply, which has not yet been given. Does the right hon. Gentleman defend the disqualification of benefit being given to a man who has been granted it by a committee, without giving that man a right of appeal?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I dissent absolutely. The whole of the action which is taken must have been taken only in the knowledge of facts which were either not apparent or not known to the hon. Member who puts the question.

Mr. MACLEAN: I give notice that on an early evening I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

TRADE UNIONS (POLITICAL LEVY).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unregistered trade unions which have had
a ballot under the Trade Union Act, 1913: and the numbers voting for or against the political levy?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Forty unregistered trade unions have taken a ballot under the Trade Union Act, 1913; 478,828 members voted for and 305,804 members voted against a political levy.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered trade unions which have had a ballot under the Trade Union Act, 1913 the total number of members of such unions; the numbers voting for or against the political levy; and the number of exemptions claimed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: One hundred and forty-five registered trade unions have taken a ballot under the Trade Union Act, 1913. The total number of members of such unions at the end of the year in which the ballots were taken was 3,003,373, the number voting for was 683,272, and the number voting against was 272,394. The number of exemptions shown at 31st December, 1925, as having been claimed by members of registered trade unions was 104,797.

PALESTINE (BRITISH IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Sir F. WISE: 47.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the exports and imports from and to Britain of Palestine for 1926 in sterling; and what are the principal goods or commodities, respectively?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): The answer consists of a table of figures, and my hon. Friend will no doubt agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The value of merchandise exported from Great Britain and Northern Ireland to Palestine during 1926 amounted to £674,000, of which British goods accounted for £647,C00, and imported goods £27,000. During the same period our total imports from Palestine amounted to £1,346,000.

Particulars of the individual commodities making up these totals will not be
available for some time, but the following statement shows the particulars for 1925:


Trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with Palestine in 1925.


Branch of Trade and principal commodities.
Declared Value thereof.



£


(a) Imports from Palestine (Total)
1,161,000


Including:



Oranges, raw
1,113,000


Wine
21,000


(b) Exports to Palestine (Total)
743,000


(i) Produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom
717,000


Including:



Cotton Yarns and Manufactures
235,000


Iron and Steel and Manufactures thereof
57,000


Machinery
52,000


Apparel, not of fur
47,000


Coal
37,000


Woollen and Worsted Yarns and Manufactures
33,000


Parcel Post
47,000


(ii) Imported Merchandise (all descriptions)
26,000

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

WIRELESS TELEPHONY (AIRCRAFT AND AIR STATIONS).

Colonel DAY: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Air, if the experiments that have taken place for short-wave wireless telephony between aircraft in flight and air stations have been successful; and whether this system of transmission will be shortly introduced into the Air Services?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The system of transmission referred to is already in use in the Royal Air Force and the possibilities of its extension are continually kept in view.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the experiments for short-wave length telephony have eliminated jamming?

Sir S. HOARE: No, I could not give that answer.

BOATS AND STRAMERS, IRAQ.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if the boats and steamers in connection with the Air Force, etc., in Iraq have been sold?

Sir S. HOARE: Negotiations are now in progress for the sale of the remaining vessels, with the exception of a limited number that are essential for defence purposes.

ENCROACHMENT HOLDERS, IRAQ.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of native encroachment holders in Iraq; what is the amount of rent and rebate they pay; whether the rent is credited to public funds and the rebate to the funds of the local unit of the Air Force; and whether arrangements will be made that all payments made by native traders in respect of land or premises on certain encroachments in Iraq shall be credited to public funds?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is, approximately, 160 encroachment holders. As regards the remainder of the question, under the arrangement now in force, as the result of full consideration of all the circumstanees, the encroachment holders pay no rebate direct to the units; they are charged a full commercial rental which covers not only the value of the encroachments and of any buildings used, but also the privilege of selling to the forces. Of this rental 50 per cent. is credited to public funds and 50 per cent. to unit fends. Payments made by the encroachment holders for water, light or other services rendered are separately credited, in full, to public funds. The new arrangement only came into force on 1st December last and no information is available in regard to the total amounts of the payments and receipts involved.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: May I put a question down again in order to get the information asked for in the last part of the question?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that it would not be worth his while to put it down for some months, as the present arrangement only began in December last.

WORKS, PALESTINE.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is any balance due to the Palestine Government in respect of works that they executed on behalf of the Air Force; and what was the nature of these works?

Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, the works were ordinary engineering services, such as construction and maintenance of buildings, required for the Royal Air Force pending the establishment by the Air Ministry in July, 1924, of its own works organisation in Palestine.

LOCOMOTIVES CONTRACT, VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT.

Sir GERVASE BECKETT: 48.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware of the rejection of a tender from Messrs. John Fowler and Company, of Leeds, to the Victorian Government for the, supply of four tank locomotives at £8,880 in favour of one from a local firm of 210,680; and whether, in the interests of British exporters of machinery, he will make representations in the matter?

Mr. LUNN: 49.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his attention has been called to the action of the Government of Victoria in accepting a local tender for the supply of four tank locomotives at the price of £10,680 when they had a tender before them from Messrs. John Fowler, Leeds, to supply them for £8,800; and whether he will make representations to the Australian Government against the exclusion of machinery manufactured in this country?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been informed by the firm referred to that the facts are as stated in the first part of the question. The matter is, however, one entirely for the Government of Victoria. It will interest the hon. Members to know that in the year ending 30th June, 1925,
the imports of locomotives from the United Kingdom into Australia were 91 per cent of the total.

Sir G. BECKETT: Does my hon. Friend not think it possible to do anything whatever to promote a better observance of the spirit of the Imperial Conference?

Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are large numbers of engineers out of work in Leeds to-day, and have been for years past, and does be believe that this is the way to develop Imperial trade, and may I ask if he has seen the correspondence with Messrs. Fowler, which states that there are enormous barriers erected in Australia against all tile goods which are made by Messrs. Fowler?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, I am aware of that, and I have seen the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers. I regret that this firm has lost that particular order, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that of the total import into Australia of locomotives in 1925, 91 per cent. were British, and they were rather better than that in 1924. This is a special case, and I do not think we should lose sight of the general facts and figures.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of cutting down the £500,000 that we spend on popularising Australian products here?

Mr. CONNOLLY: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Leeds tender included spot delivery and freightage?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I think the Leeds tender was an f. o. r. one.

Mr. J. BECKETT: Can the hon. Gentleman say—

Mr. SPEAKER: This seems to be the business of a self-governing Dominion.

Mr. LUNN: Is not this a matter which concerns the British taxpayer, as we quote very cheap rates to Australia; and are we not financing this higher contract price of Australia against Messrs. Fowlers by our cheap loans?

EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour now the ratio of persons gainfully occupied to total population in Great Britain compares with the corresponding ratio in the United States of America, France, Germany and Italy?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: According to the latest information in my possession, the percentages and the dates to which they relate are as follow:



Year.
Percentage.


Great Britain
1921
45


United States
1920
39


France
1921
56


Germany
1907
40


Italy
1011
46


It is possible that owing to differences in definition and in classification (for example, as regards farmers' relatives assisting in the work of the farms) the percentages given may not be strictly comparable. The figures are also affected by differences in the ages at which juveniles were admitted to employment at the census dates.

Mr. SHORT: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any value can be placed on these figures at all?

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. KELLY: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour how many States have made their ratification of the Washington Hours Convention conditional on ratification by Great Britain and other Powers; and how many States have given the failure of Great Britain and the said Powers to ratify as a ground for refusing in their turn to ratify?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Three States, Austria, Italy and Latvia, have ratified the Convention conditionally. In the first two cases Great Britain along with other States is mentioned by name. In Latvia ratification is conditional on ratification by three of the countries of chief industrial importance under Article 393 of the Treaty Versailles. Statements have been made from time to time at Sessions of the International Labour Conference that certain Governments were affected in their attitude to ratification by inaction in that regard on the
part of other States, but without examining detail the records it would not be possible to specify the Governments in question.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask if the position of Belgium is known to the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes.

Mr. KELLY: And have Belgium ratified the Convention?

Sir A. STEEL-NIAITLAND: So understand.

BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what grants, payments or allowances have been made or fixed in connection with the British Industries Fair for 1926 and 1927; whether any guarantee is required from exhibitors that all goods and material shown must be British made; and, if so, he will explain why certain toys marked as made in the United States of America are exhibited at this year's fair, and also German glass?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): A grant of £25,000 was made from public funds for advertising the British Industries Fair of 1926 and 1927. With regard to the second part of the question, all goods exhibited at the fair must, have been manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire, and an undertaking is required from each exhibitor to that effect. As regards the last part of the question, my hen. Friend, perhaps, has in mind shooting game, of which one of the parts is a toy gun of foreign manufacture. This gun is not sold separately, and I have ascertained that its cost represents only a small percentage of the cost of the complete game. I have been unable to trace any glassware of foreign manufacture at the fair, except in cases where the greater part of the cost of the article is attributable to the value of the mountings, which are made with British labour and of British material.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: May I ask the hon. Member whether the article that he says was made overseas can be made in the British Empire; if so, what is he
doing to find out whether British goods only are exhibited; and will any action be taken where he finds that things not British-made are exhibited?

Mr. SAMUEL: We have to depend on the exhibitors, who sign an undertaking on their honour as follows:
I (we) will not exhibit or solicit orders for goods other than those of our own manufacture," etc.
We have to trust to the honour of the exhibitors in every case, and out of the large number of exhibits this year we have only had these two cases brought to the notice.

Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: Has any action been taken where this particular article has been found, and will any action be taken if other evidence be brought to the notice of the Minister?

Mr. SAMUEL: No, not in this particular case. The goods in question are mainly of British origin and manufacture, and I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to accept the assurance that this gun is a trivial thing, and that it bears a very small relation to the total value of the exhibit of which it is a part.

NATIONAL DEBT AND TAXATION (COLWYN REPORT).

Major HILLS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the Colwyn Report?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander EyresMonsell): Hon. Members will no doubt take advantage of the many opportunities afforded by the Budget and Finance Bill Debates for the discussion of the mattere dealt with in this Report. That seems the most appropriate time for such discussion and the Prime Minister does not think any further facilities are necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE STAFF.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the figures showing the total War Office personnel, service and civilian staff, for 31st March. 1913, and at the present date,
as well as the total strength of the forces of the Army for the corresponding dates; and what is the cause of the present increase in the proportional strength of the War Office staff?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Robinson) on 22nd February. As regards the last part of the question, there is a very full explanation of the principal causes of the permanent increases of the work at the War Office in Appendix 32 of the First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1926.

Colonel WOODCOCK: In view of the figures that have been given, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how it is that while the strength of the Army has been considerably reduced, the War Office strength is far above that of pre-War days, and is being increased; and how he settles this in connection with the economy that is proposed?

Captain KING: If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, to which I have referred him, he will find two pages of detailed explanation.

Colonel WOODCOCK: I have, but that does not explain it.

Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that the Geddes Committee indicated that a large volume of the correspondence dealt with by the War Office was largely created by that staff?

Captain KING: The recommendations of the Geddes Committee were very largely carried out at the War Office.

WRITING ASSISTANTS AND CLERICAL CLASSES (WOMEN).

Miss LAWRENCE: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give an assurance that it is not intended to introduce into the Civil Service a large number of girls from outside the service by means of the forthcoming examinations for the writing assistant and clerical classes (women), and that there will be no repetition of the position arising during
1924 and 1925, when young girls were brought in on a wholesale scale and adult women with many years' service were dismissed?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Mansbury) on the 28th February.

FOREIGN OFFICE (OVERSEAS NEWS SERVICE).

Mr. DUNNICO: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of overseas representatives of the News Department of the Foreign Office; how many are employed full time and how many on part time; where the representatives are stationed; and what is the annual cost of the overseas service of the News Department?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The News Department expenses abroad for the current financial year are included in subhead L of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote for 1920–7, in which details are given. The amount provided for 1926–7 was £17,550, but the total for the next financial year will re reduced by approximately £1,380. Whole time representatives are maintained at Paris, Berlin, Rome and New York. The post at Brussels has recently been abolished, except for an assistant who will in future be attached to the Embassy. Part-time officials are employed at Sofia, Buenos Aires and Tokio, the assistant at The Hague having now been dispensed with.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

AGRICULTURE, KINCARDINESHIRE (CHILD WORKERS).

Mr. STEPHEN: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision he has reached with regard to the proposal of the Kincardineshire education authority to reduce the age to 10 years at which school children may be employed in seasonal 3cetTations such as potato-lifting?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The bylaw submitted by the Kincardineshire education authority is still under my consideration. I am in correspondence with the education authority with
regard to certain objections lodged in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (DENTAL TREATMENT).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that many of the approved societies have been unable to meet their liability for dental treatment under the National Health Insurance Act owing to increased charges; whether he is aware that such charges were negotiated with the dentists by the Scottish Board of Health without any consultation with any of the other interested parties; and whether, in view of the protests that are being made, he will reconsider the method of negotiation, and meantime suspend the present scale of charges?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Dental treatment is not a statutory benefit, and approved societies are under no obligation to provide it, but they may do so if they have surplus funds available for the purpose. It is not the ease that the charges re-erred to were negotiated by the Scottish Board of Health. The scale was agreed by a Joint Dental Committee consisting of representatives of dentists and approved societies' interests. I have accordingly no power to take any action such as is suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is it not the case that under Section 75 of the Act of 1924, power lies with the societies to negotiate matters of this kind, and why did the Scottish Board of Health appoint two representatives notwithstanding the protest of the societies?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether the procedure in this connection which applies to England is followed in Scotland; and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Scottish Board of Health takes the initiative in calling the parties together in order to clear up these difficulties?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the Scottish Board of Health took the proper procedure before this conference, and that it was on exactly the same footing as that adopted in England.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific question I have put?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I made very careful inquiries, and the Scottish Board of Health have no responsibility for the decision arrived at on this matter—no responsibility whatever.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is it not the cases that under Section 75 of the Act of 1924, the societies have the power to negotiate these matters by themselves, and why, therefore, was any such step taken?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My information is that the proper procedure was followed, and if the hon. Gentleman has any further question to ask, perhaps he will put it down.

BRITISH DEPENDENCIES (RECRUITMENT FOR AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENTS).

Mr. W. BAKER: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken regarding the training and recruitment of officers for the agricultural departments of the non-self-governing dependencies?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) on the 23rd February.

SUGAR-BEET FACTORIES.

Mr. THURTLE: 51 and 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) the total amount of subsidy received by sugar-beet factories in the manufacturing season 1926–27; the total number of persons employed in these factories; and the length of the manufacturing season;
(2)the total amount of subsidy received by sugar-beet factories in the manufacturing season 1925–26; the number of persons employed in these factories; and the length of the manufacturing season?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The total amount of subsidy on sugar and molasses received by the British beet sugar factories in the manufacturing season 1925–26 was
£1,124,207, and in the season 1926–27 up to 28th February, 1927, was £3,041,083. The number of persons employed in the factories in the 1925–26 season was 4,613, and in the past season 7,194. The length of the manufacturing season is, approximately, 100 days.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, that works out at nearly £500 per man?

Mr. THURTLE: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the effluent from sugar-beet factories is polluting many streams in the eastern counties; and if he can state what action he is taking to deal with this evil?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware of the pollution which has been caused by beet sugar factories in the eastern counties and elsewhere, and at my instigation the manufacturers appointed an expert to visit all the factories, to report upon the arrangements for disposal of effluents, and to indicate the lines of investigation along which it may be hoped that adequate methods of treatment may be discovered. I understand that he is at present engaged upon his report. In the meantime, arrangements have been made with the Department of Scientific and industrial Research for certain investigations to be set on foot at the Rothamsted Experimental Station, by means of which it is hoped that the solution of some of the fundamental problems underlying the difficult question of the treatment of beet sugar effluents may be advanced.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether the River Lark is polluted?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, I am afraid it is.

CHARITIES (CONTROL).

Colonel DAY: 56.
asked the Homo Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the many cases of bogus charities and waste of money in commission and expenses in the matter of various charitable funds; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation which will have for its object the more effective registration and control of all charitable contributions?

Captain HACKING: This question is under the consideration of an Inter-Departmental Committee, which is expected to report very shortly. My right hon. Friend must consider their report before he comes to any decision as to legislation.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when this report is expected, as the scandal has been going on for a very long time?

Captain HACKING: I said in my reply "very shortly," and if it is any satisfaction to the hon. Member, I will say it will not be very long.

LICENSED PREMISES (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will give instructions for fuller detail to be incorporated in the annual accounts of the State Management District under the Licensing Act, 1921, in particular giving specific information under the following heads: the extent of the area covered in which the licensed houses are exclusively under State management; the number of licensed houses under State management outside the area above referred to, in what towns they are situated, and the proportion in such towns which the State-managed houses bear to the privately-managed houses; in the profit and loss account the amounts referred to without detail in previous accounts as deductions from the trading accounts balance, under the following headings: rent, repairs, and alterations, licence and other duties (beer, spirits, etc.), taxes (other than Income Tax (Schedule D)), rates (or contributions in lieu thereof), managerial and architectural staff, depreciation of plant, and furnishings and utensils; where, instead of rates, contributions in lieu thereof are paid, the basis of assessing such contributions; the total amount of depreciation written off licensed houses' capital account; details of the items comprised in the sum allocated in the accounts to headquarters' administrative expenses; the licence duties paid in respect of the licensed houses; and payments to the compensation fund under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, made in respect to the
State-managed licensed premises in towns where some of the houses are under such management?

Captain HACKING: I am not sure that all the items asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend can properly be shown in the accounts to which he refers: but my right hon. Friend will consider carefully all his suggestions before any further accounts or report are issued.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what would have been the receipts by way of tax and super-tax if the houses under management were in private ownership, and whether these taxes would be more than the profits now claimed to be made?

Captain HACKING: I am not sure that these two matters are mentioned in the question.

INCOME TAX (FISHERMEN).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 58.
asked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the question of allowing a deduction from the assessable amount for Income Tax to fishermen in respect of the special clothing and boots used by them in the course of their occupation, on the same scale as allowances for tools are granted to other workmen?

Mr. R. MCNEILL: Certain classes of manual wage earners who are obliged to provide special clothing which is used exclusively for the purposes of their occupation, are granted an appropriate reduction in their Income Tax assessment for the cost of upkeep of the clothing. If such an allowance is thought to be due in the case of the fishermen to whom ray hon. Friend refers, I would suggest that their association or representatives should Communicate with the Board of Inland Revenue at Somerset House, so that the question may be investigated.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will call the attention of the Inspector for the Grimsby district to this rule?

Mr. MCNEILL: I think there is no necessity to do that.

DOLLAR BONDS (CONVERSIONS)

Sir F. WISE: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of conversions in 1926 from the 10-year dollar bonds, 1929–30; and the balance of the unconverted dollar bonds?

Mr. MCNEILL: In the calendar year 1926, 5–1 per cent. 10-year dollar bonds to a total of $7,090,000 were converted into £1,649,000 National War Bonds. The amount of 10-year dollar bonds remaining unconverted on 31st December last was $15,403,000.

OVERSEAS AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES AND RESEARCH STATIONS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in accordance with the recommendation of the Imperial Conference, steps have been taken to establish further agricultural colleges and research stations similar to the one existing in Trinidad and the Amani Institute?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given to a similar question asked by him on the 8th December last. The whole subject is being examined by the Empire Marketing Board, in consultation with the various authorities concerned, and will it is hoped be considered by the Imperial Agricultural Research Conference next October.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Government of Australia propose establishing a research station in New Guinea on the lines of the proposals of the Imperial Conference?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no information regarding the establishment of a research station in New Guinea; but I may perhaps add that consideration is being given by His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, in consultation with the Empire Marketing Board, to the possibility of establishing a research station in Northern Australia which would serve for the examination of problems affecting the Southern Pacific.

TANGANYIKA CAMPAIGN.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the
cost to the British Exchequer of the campaign in Tanganyika territory during the Great War?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, but regret that the information asked for is not available. The form in which Government accounts are kept makes it very difficult to estimate separately the cost of a particular campaign in the Great War.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: Is it possible to give any approximate figure?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that it would not be possible, because the system of accounting in the different theatres of war makes it practically impossible to arrive at any figures that are of value.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (TRAINING FACILTIES).

Mr. W. BAKER: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware of the success which has attended the training of soldiers at Catterick prior to emigration; and whether he is contemplating the establishment of a similar scheme for civilians?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir. The Catterick training is in my opinion highly successful. Facilities of a similar character for training a limited number of civilians for settlement on the land overseas are already provided under the Ministry of Labour Training Scheme.

Mr. BAKER: May I ask whether the details of the schemes referred to are easily available?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee for last year will give an opportunity for making public the details of the various schemes.

Mr. LAWSON: May I ask whether there are consultations between the representatives of the Ministry of Labour and the War Office in connection with these schemes?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Oh, yes, Sir; and largely through the co-ordination of
the Oversea Settlement Department there are representatives of the Ministry of Labour on the Committee.

SUDAN (GRANT-IN-AID).

Mr. DUNNICO: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how the Sudan grant-in-aid has been disbursed; if there is any balance in hand; and if any of the grant has been set aside for a memorial of the late Sirdar?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Except for the sums paid to Lady Stack and the victims of the outrage in which the late Sirdar lost his life, the Sudan grant-in-aid remains intact, the capital and interest being earmarked for certain benevolent objects in the Sudan recommended by the Sudan Government and approved after consultation with the Leaders of the Opposition. Sir Lee Stack's name will be given to two of these objects, namely, a Provincial Benevolent Fund for the relief of eases of genuine distress, and to a memorial dining hall and library, which are badly needed by the Gordon College at Khartum.

MINE DISASTERS (MONMOUTH AND NOTTINGHAM).

Mr. BARKER: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the latest and fullest information in connection with the mining disaster in South Wales?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am afraid I can add very little to the full accounts which have already been published. The Divisional Inspector reports that it seems probable that the explosion originated in the Black Vein Seam. Its cause is still a mystery; it is stated that no shot-firing is done in that seam.
In the Old Coal Seam there were 32 men at the time of the explosion (one a.m.). Seven of these were able to walk out by the return airway, and two were carried out by the others. Sixteen men unfortunately attempted to get to the shaft by the intake and were caught by the afterdamp. There is no news of the remaining seven, hut there can, I fear, be no doubt that all have perished. Access to the bodies was impeded by a fall of
several hundred tons, but I have just had a telegram from the. Divisional Inspector to say that all the bodies have been recovered.
In the Black Vein Seam there were 30 men. Two were brought out alive yesterday morning, one of whom died on reaching the surface. Exploration showed that the district was full of gas and there was no possibility of any of the others being alive. The gas is being cleared, and the Divisional Inspector expected that the bodies would be brought out in the course of to-day.
I fear, therefore, that the total death-roll will be 52.
The Divisional Inspector reports that all the principal officials of the company were down the pit within an hour of the explosion, and that everyone has behaved with great gallantry. I am glad to say that the rescuers who were gassed are doing well.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it known whether the mine had been worked in constant shifts? Was it working a single shift, or was this one of three shifts? Was the system of continuous working such that the mine was not allowed, to cool, or that there was not sufficient inspection as to the presence of gas?

Sir P. CUNLIFFELISTER: That is a question which obviously I could not answer without notice. The hon. Member knows there must be the fullest possible inquiry into this most unhappy disaster, and I world like to wait until we have got the full report before answering any questions of that kind.

Mr. HARDIE: But is it a three-shift mine or a one-shift?

Mr. VARLEY: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the latest information regarding the disaster at the Bilsthorpe Colliery, Nottingham?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The latest reports from the divisional inspector give the following particulars of the Bilsthorpe disaster.
The shaft in process of being sunk is 276 yards deep. Twenty-two yards from the bottom is a scaffold—4 yards from
the bottom was a 500 horse-power pump suspended from the head-gear. Water is carried from the pump to the surface in 8-inch steel tubes. About 3 a.m. yesterday morning nine men were working at the bottom of the shaft, and eight others were descending in the hoppit. At the scaffold three men got out of the hoppit. Just as the hoppit was starting down from the scaffold level the whole of the rising main pipes broke away and fell down the shaft. It was impossible to move the hoppit after the accident. A new hoppit was brought into use and was lowered to a depth of 200 yards, at which level it was found that the broken pipes prevented its further descent. A rope was lowered, and by this means three men on the scaffold, who proved to be not seriously injured, were rescued about noon yesterday. These men said there was no sign of anyone else alive on the scaffold or below it. Early this morning a body was recovered from the scaffold, but access to the shaft below is prevented by the heaped pipes and debris, and by the water which has now risen nearly up to the scaffold. Steps are being taken to lower the water, but I fear there can be no doubt that the 13 men unaccounted for have lost their lives. There is nothing at present to show what caused the pipes to fall, but an inquiry will, of course, be held.

Mr. BECKETT: Will the right non. Gentleman say at what hour of the shift this accident took place?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Bilsthorpe disaster did not occur during a working shift, because in this case a shaft was being sunk, and the men who lost their lives in the hoppit were being lowered at that moment.

INDEX TO QUESTIONS.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware that the Index to Questions which used to be kept in the Library has been discontinued on the ground of expense; and whether, having regard to the absence of any reference to recent Questions, and the great inconvenience caused thereby, you will have your decision reconsidered in regard to this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Index to Questions which was kept in the Library was discontinued, as the hon. Member rightly says, on the ground of expense. At the suggestion of the Treasury, a careful note was kept of the numbers consulting it over two separate periods of five weeks in 1925, from which it appeared that the average number of inquiries per week was about 15. At the rate of remuneration paid for making the index the cost of each inquiry worked out at 6s. 8d. In view of the laborious nature of the work of compiling the index, the rate of remuneration (£150 per annum) did not seem excessive, but the use made of it by Members seemed insufficient to justify the expense. I decided, therefore, that the Index should be discontinued in 1925, and no fresh grounds have appeared for reconsidering my decision.

Mr. BAKER: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the absence of this Index bears more heavily upon the poorer Members of the House? While the Treasury may secure a small economy, it does place upon the shoulders of individual Members of this House a very heavy task if they are to do their work as efficiently as they are endeavouring to do it. For these reasons, I trust you will have this matter reconsidered, because it is a matter of importance to the poorer Members of the House.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Probably the reason why the index was not used to a much larger extent last year was the fact that there was insufficient publicity given to its existence, and actually during the short time of its existence a very large number of Members were unaware of its existence. Had more publicity been given to the fact that this index had been prepared, I feel sure more interest would have been taken in it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot agree with that. It was at the request of hon. Members that this experiment was made, and I think hon. Members were well aware of the facilities that were being provided. When the experiment had had a sufficient trial, I was unable to justify the original charge made for it, and I am afraid I cannot try it twice over.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the practice of putting Supplementary Questions on matters of grave foreign policy? I apologise for not having given notice of this questior, but my question arises out of the number of Supplementary Questions which have been put about China to-day. I want to know, has it not been the general practice of this House, either through the good sense of the House, or through Ministers refusing to answer Supplementary Questions, or through restrictions imposed by Mr. Speaker himself, to curtail severely the number of questions asked on foreign policy? When Mr. Balfour was the Leader of the Opposition, he laid down that no Supplementary Questions on foreign policy should be answered. I know that the President of the Board of Education used to answer these questions, but at that time there were no grave questions of foreign policy. When Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the Leader of the House he affirmed the old rule, and subsequently he said that he had stated the matter too broadly. I submit, Mr. Speaker that there ought to be some restrictions on the number of Supplementary Questions put in regard to foreign affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]

Mr. SPEAKER: I am certainly not aware of there ever having been a rule to prevent or to limit Supplementary Questions. The remedy lies, in the first instance, with the Minister, who is not hound to answer any questions which he thinks would be prejudicial to the public interest. Of course it rests with the Speaker to intervene if he thinks the right has been abused, but I think the matter must be left there. Hon. Members have always had the libercy of putting a certain number of Supplementary Questions.

Mr. CLYNES: If it be a fact that on this side of the House Supplementary Questions have been put on the subject of China, is it not also a fact that many Supplementary Questions have been put from the other side of the House on the subject of Russia?

Mr. SPEAKER: I feel it my duty not to see the pot or the kettle.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION.

SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE.

Major Sir CLIVE MORRISON-BELL: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the remarkably efficient way in which the authorities moved the Defence Force from this country to Shanghai, and move a Resolution.

AGRICULTURE.

Mr. MacLAREN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the question of Agriculture, and move a Resolution.

TRUSTS.

Mr. SCURR: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the Growth of Trusts, and move a Resolution.

ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

Mr. G. HALL: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I will call attention to the question of Accidents in Mines, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED.

MERCANTILE MARINE MEMORIAL BILL,

"to confer powers on the Imperial War Graves Commission with respect to the erection of a memorial to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine who perished in the late War," presented by Mr. GOSLING; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Lloyd George; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 10th March, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

ROYAL AND PARLIAMENTARY TITLES BILL,

"to provide for the alteration of the Royal Style and Titles and of the Style of Parliament; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented by Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS; supported by Mr. Amery; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

SHERIFF COURTS AND LEGAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to amend the Law relating to the offices of Sheriff Clerk, Procurator Fiscal, and
Commissary Clerk in Scotland, and to make further provision regarding Sheriff Courts," presented by Sir JOHN GILMOUR; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland and Major Elliot; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE BILL,

"to amend the enactments relating to the Naval Reserve Forces," presented by Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM; supported by Mr. Bridgeman; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

AUCTIONEERS.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to auctioneers and to prohibit the holding of mock auctions.
I should like to point out, in the first place, that this is not the same Bill as that which was introduced by the Noble Lord the Member for the King's Lynn Division of Norfolk (Lord Fermoy) and read a Second time on Friday last. That was a Measure to protect the honest seller against the fraudulent buyer. My Bill is one to protect the honest buyer against the fraudulent seller. I can therefore claim, at any rate, that it has a quite different object from the Bill of the Noble Lord. Its object is to protect the public, and particularly the members of the working-class, who, I say without hesitation, are being swindled out of their money by the sale of worthless or inferior goods, under the pretence that they are genuine, by auctioneers who, while selling in a fraudulent manner, try to make the people believe they are carrying on a genuine sale. I have no doubt that many Members of the House have noticed these mock auctions in many of the main streets of the towns which they represent, in the City of London, and particularly in many of the seaside resorts during the season when the trippers are there spending their holidays. They will have noticed that these establishments are set out with a great display of flashy jewellery, furniture and ornaments, and that they are conducted by people who, although they hold auctioneers' licences
issued by the Customs and Excise Department, and are regarded by the public as genuine auctioneers, are indeed a disgrace to an honourable professon. They usually claim to be selling off bankrupt stock and all sorts of tricks are resorted to in order to persuade people to bid, and fancy prices are obtained. The selling is generally assisted by a ring of touts who receive remuneration for making mock bids, and other means are employed to persuade people to bid prices for goods far in excess of their value.
I hope that hon. Members have seen a copy of the pamphlet issued by the chairman of the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers, which sets out the details of many of the tricks resorted to by these people. As my time is limited, I regret that I cannot give the House further details about these swindles which are taking place, but I can assure hon. Members that I know a good deal about them. I have had experience both as a practical man—not as a seller and not as a buyer—and I speak as one who understands the class of business and who has tried from time to time to persuade people that these men are fraudulent and to stop their practices. Not only are people swindled, but honest traders suffer by the operations of these individuals, inasmuch as they sell goods to people at very high prices, and every article sold, whether fraudulently or not, is one article less for somebody else to sell. The honest trader thereby loses trade. It is also destructive to the credit of the genuine auctioneer and the genuine trader that these people should be allowed to carry on this business. I myself, in my own constituency, have seen this kind of swindle practised, and I have done my best to persuade people not to purchase from these individuals. I could give a case in point. A very small jeweller's business—the man had not above £25 worth of goods in his shop—was bought up by one of these mock auction firms. They filled the shop up with goods of all descriptions of a flashy nature, chiefly of German make, and they advertised it as selling off this man's stock. The working people in the district went to the sale and were persuaded to bid very high prices for goods which afterwards they discovered were not worth anything like a quarter of the money
which they had paid, but the auctioneer had departed. Complaint was made to the police, and the difficulties of dealing with the question were pointed out by the chief of police.
There is another form of swindle, which is known as the rigged sale, and this does not hit the working-class so much as others. A vacant country mansion is taken and is well stocked with inferior furniture imitating something of a better character. Pictures that are fakes and faked ornaments are brought there in order that they may be sold as though they were the property of the late owner. The sale is advertised, and people come from all parts of the country thinking that they are going to buy genuine articles. This practice has been very prevalent near and in the neighbourhood of Brighton, though it is not by any means confined to that district. I could give a case where a certain pair of vases were put into one of these auctions and were bought for £85, and I know where they came from and what they cost—£3 That is only one case out of many. Under the present state of the law, it is extremely difficult to put an end to the practice, and, although numerous complaints have been made to the police authorities throughout the country, they have found themselves in the great majority of cases quite unable to take any effective action. For example, the Chief Constable of Blackpool, where the matter has become a public scandal, says:
The existing law is inadequate to deal with this matter, and I am quite satisfied that the proposals in the new Bill would effect a definite improvement on the present position.
I have letters from chief constables in many other parts of the country and also letters from the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers expressing their desire for stronger powers to deal with this evil. I shall he pleased to show these letters to any hon. Member who is interested. It is possible that some cases could be dealt with by an action for obtaining money by false pretences, but, in view of the difficulties the police find in securing convictions under the existing law, as expressed by the chief constables for these various towns and cities, I hope that the House will agree that I have made out
a strong case for the Bill and that it will allow me, at any rate, to have a First Reading.
The Bill is being promoted by the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents, after consultation with the Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, the two leading organisations representing the profession, and it is cordially supported by the National Chamber of Trade, the National Association of Goldsmiths, the Scottish Association of Watchmakers and Jewellers, and the London and Suburban Traders' Federation. It is backed by Members of all parties in the House, and has not, so far as I am aware, encountered the slightest sign of opposition from any quarter. During the Debate on the Second Reading of the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Bill on Friday, it was mentioned that although we had one hon. Member who was an auctioneer supporting the Bill, he had not backed that Bill, and no member of the legal profession had backed the Bill. I have taken the precaution of getting the backing of the hen. Member for Central Bradford (Lieut.-Colonel Gadie), who is an auctioneer by profession, and also of the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian). They have carefully gone over the Bill, and it has their full approval and backing. The Bill imposes penalties for wilful misdescription of the purposes of a sale, the origin, or quality, and substance of the goods, and, if the offender be a licensed auctioneer, he is rendered ineligible to hold a licence for 12 months after conviction.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Womersley, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Fenby, Lieut.-Colonel Gadie, Mr. Grotrian, Mr. Hayes, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Looker and Dr. Shiels.

AUCTIONEERS BILL,

"to amend the Law with respect to auctioneers, and to prohibit the holding of mock auctions," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Thorne Colliery Railway and Wharf [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill
2. "That, in the case of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."
3. "That, in the case of the London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority (No. 2), Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

First and Third Resolutions agreed to.

Report to lie upon the Table.

LONDON SQUARES AND ENCLOSURES (PRESERVATION) BILL,

Order for Second Reading upon Monday next read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, with one small exception, is identical with the Bill which was introduced last year, but which had to be dropped for lack of Parliamentary time. I would like just to point out to the House the very limited scope of the Bill. It is really confined to two purposes, and two purposes only. They are, first of all, to give power to increase the number of Commissioners from eight to ten; and, secondly, to enable the Commissioners to make by-laws with appropriate penalties for the management of the woods under their charge. I would like to say a word or two about each of those purposes. It is desirable to increase the number of Commissioners, first of all, because there has been a very considerable increase in the work that they have to do since they were established by the Act of 1919 and because that work is continually increasing; and I think in most parts of the House we hope that it will continue to increase for some time. Secondly, they have had an access of work, and more varied work, since the introduction of the scheme for providing forest workers' homes which was introduced by the party opposite, and with which personally I am in sympathy. In addition, by a recent Act passed in 1923 the care of Crown woods, previously under the management of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, has been transferred to the Forestry Commission, and that, of course, as hon. Members will see, not only increases the work but introduces a completely new element into the work.
When the Forestry Commissioners were engaged solely in creating new woods, in planting new woods, that was one type of work, but when they had placed under their charge ancient woods like the Forest of Dean and the New Forest, they then became responsible for mature timber—for the disposal of it, and for
the management and replenishment of those old woods. These additions to their work have made it very desirable that their number should be increased, and the intention of this Bill is to increase the number from eight to ten.
The second object of the Bill is, I submit to the House, far more urgent. It is important that there should be an increase in the number of Commissioners, but the work would go on, and I do not know that it would be in any serious jeopardy, at all events, even if the number were not increased. But the necessity for making by-laws is a very much more urgent matter. In the first place, as hon. Members will easily see, with these large woods under their management, a responsibility is cast upon the Commissioners, first of all, for preserving the amenities of the woods, for preventing, so far as they can, any careless damage to the woods; but what is most important of all is to enable them to take safeguards against the danger of fire. I have been assured by the Forestry Commission that the danger of fire is a very real and a very urgent one. It would be bad enough in the case of the old woods, where great destruction might occur, not only from the point of view of beauty, but of utility; but the younger woods which have been planted, which have now established themselves and have grown for four or five years—growing, as lion. Members know, when these young woods are planted, in a very close and dense mass—are liable, especially during the summer months, and especially, I am told, on the very light soils of the Eastern Counties, to fire, which in the course of a few hours might wipe out the work of years, and, of course, inflict On the country a very serious pecuniary loss. Therefore I am asking the House to pass this Measure to-day, so that these by-laws may be put in operation before the summer months come, when, of course, the danger would be greatest, if we were blessed with a few weeks of warm, droughty weather. Therefore, I submit to the House that a very serious responsibility is cast upon us to see that these necessities are met.
I should be quite content, myself, to leave the matter there, because I think that that is a quite sufficient case in favour of this Bill; but I notice that two
hon. Members opposite, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) and another, have given notice that they are going to ask the House to reject this Measure. The hon. Member for Dundee put down, last year, a reasoned Amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill when it was then introduced, and, if it is any satisfaction to him, I am quite willing to give him the credit of having prevented the passing of the Bill during last year. It would be presumption on my part to make any appeal to him, but I hope very much, for the reasons I have stated, that he is not going to prevent the Bill from passing this year, and I think it would be not unreasonable to make an appeal to him when I point out this to the House: I think I know the reasons why the hon. Member objects to the passing of this Measure at the present time. Unless he has changed his mind, I think that probably the same reasons which actuated him last year are his motives this year. If that be so, this significant fact emerges, that there is nothing in this Bill to which the hon. Member objects. What he objects to is not what is in the Bill, but what is not in the Bill. He does not object to anything that we are proposing to do, hut he objects because we are not proposing something else. That is really, as I understand it, the attitude of the hon. Member.
He does not object, I think he will tell us, to the addition of two Commissioners to the present body. He does not object, I have no doubt, to by-laws being made for the safety of the woods. That is the whole of the Bill. He wants, however, to throw out this Bill because he wants to alter the whole scheme of the Forestry Commission. That is a perfectly intelligible view, and I do not object—I have no right to object.—to that view being held. All that I submit is that this is not the moment at which to bring that view forward, and I will tell hon. Members why. In the first place, with regard to the reasonableness of that view, I really am not concerned at this present moment, to express any opinion myself as to whether or not the Forestry Commission ought to be definitely under a Minister of the Crown in the way in which other Government Departments are. I do not think it is necessary for
me to express any opinion on that point But what I do want to point out to hon. Members is that the present experiment —because it was only an experiment—was entered upon in the year 1919. A very capable Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Francis Acland, who was a very well-known Member of this House, was set up to inquire into the whole question, which had been brought forcibly to the national mind after the War, of afforestation in this country. Every party in this House was represented upon that Committee, and many of its members were probably as learned on the question of forestry as anyone who could be found in this country. They conducted a most painstaking investigation, going very thoroughly into all matters both in regard to the constitution of the Forestry Commission and everything else which came within the terms of their reference. That Committee laid it down most deliberately and emphatically that in their judgment, for reasons which they gave, it would be very much better that this Forestry Commission should be an independent body, independent of all political ties and political pressure; and they particularly recommended, and recommended strongly, that, while one member of the Commissison should be a Member of this House, no member of the Commission should he in receipt of a ministerial salary—in other words, that the Commission should not be, strictly speaking, part and parcel of the responsibilities of any Government Department.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is not Lord Lovat still a member of the Commission, and is he not a member of the Government?

Mr. McNEILL: He is not a member of the Government as a Commissioner; it is a side issue.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Is he a paid Commissioner?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, he is a paid Commissioner, but he is not a member of the Government because he is a Forestry Commissioner. What the Committee recommended should not be done was to make one of the Forestry Commissioners, as such, a member of the Government in receipt of a ministerial salary.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not the case that Lord Lovat, in fact, receives no salary?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Oh. yes, he does.

Mr. McNEILL: I think Lord Lovat is in receipt of a salary—

Mr. JOHNSTON: £1,650.

Mr. McNEILL: That is not the point with which I am dealing here. I am now dealing by anticipation, if I may, with the point that the hon. Member for Dundee is likely to raise, namely, that he thinks, and some other Members—I believe on both sides of the House—think, that this recommendation of the Acland Committee ought to be upset. The Act of 1919 was introduced in consequence of the Report of that Committee; the Government followed the Committee's recommendations, and adopted the constitution suggested by the Committee.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether all the Commissioners are paid?

Mr. McNEILL: I think that two of them are paid, but it was specially recommended by the Acland Committee that the Member of this House should not be one of the paid Commissioners. As I was saying—

Mr. RILEY: May he be a member of the House of Lords?

Mr. McNEILL: I should be very much obliged if hon. Members would let me finish, and then make their observations. I was pointing out that the Act of 1919, in setting up the Forestry Commission, followed these recommendations, rightly or wrongly. At all events, the Government had no better authority to go upon; they had the best advice upon which the House at that time could have acted. It may be that hon. Members opposite are greater authorities, that they are learning wisdom on the subject of forestry—[Interruption.] I think the inference from their action is that they think so. Otherwise, I do not quite understand how they can bring themselves to move the rejection of a very modest little Bill like this, which does not at all touch the question of the constitution of the Committee, but is, as I have said, merely for the subsidiary purposes which I have described. However that may be, I will not discuss
it at the present moment; I am only saying that the Parliament of 1919 acted upon the very best advice which could have been given at that time.
There is a further point which I think strengthens this case. It was laid clown then that this should be in the nature of an experiment, that is to say, a definite sum of money was set apart which was to be at the disposal of the Forestry Commission, for the purposes of the activities which were entrusted to them, for a period of 10 years. That was a departure from our ordinary financial procedure, and it was done deliberately, in order to carry out the intention of divorcing the Forestry Commission so far as possible from politics. If hon. Gentlemen opposite had their will, of course it would follow that an Estimate would have to be brought in in the ordinary way every year, either as part and parcel of the Ministry of Agriculture's Estimate or in some other way; at all events, the finance of the Forestry Commission would lose its independence, and it would, therefore, in the opinion of the Parliament of that day, lose its continuity of policy. As I have said, this was an experiment for 10 years. The 10 years come to an end next year, 1928–29, so that, whatever happens to-day, there will have to be a general review of the whole position in the course of the next year or 18 months. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members that, however much force there may be in their criticism as to the constitution of the Commission, it would be not unreasonable for them to say, "We will defer our attempt to subvert the whole constitution of the Commission, as it has been hitherto arranged, until next year, when we shall have a review of the whole of the circumstances, and when the time will be a wholly appropriate one for discussing down to bedrock what the future constitution of the Forestry Commission ought to be." The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) speaking last year said he had no wish to hamper the progress of afforestation. If, in the circumstances I have mentioned, he is unwilling even to wait for his constitutional ideas for a few months, and if in the meantime he insists upon our taking the risks I have described, of loss by fire and other damage to these woods, it is idle to tell us or anyone else that he really has no wish to hamper the progress of afforestation.
We ought to be allowed to pass this Bill to safeguard what has been already done and to enable the Commission, however constituted, to do its business as fully and efficiently as possible. I hope hon. Members will see that there is some reason in what I have been saying on that point and will allow the Bill to proceed.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words, "upon this day six months."
The right hon. Gentleman has said, quite accurately, that no one has the slightest desire to crab in any way the activities of the Forestry Commission, but I do not think he has any justification whatever for the allegation that if we obstruct the essential part of the Bill, or the non-essential part as he chooses to put it, we are doing anything whatever detrimental to the progress of afforestation. If, for example, the number of Commissioners remained at eight and was not increased to 10, it would not affect in the slightest degree the growth of timber. This is the only opportunity we have under the present constitution of the Forestry Commission for raising the whole question of afforestation and the Forestry Commission being constituted as it is, not in correlation with the other policies of the Government, not for example having any connection whatever with the problem of unemployment, or being subject to criticism in this House or its expenditure, we are entitled, if we are going to be of any use here at all, to seize an opportunity of this kind and make the most of it. The right hon. Gentleman said the work of this Forestry Commission was of great importance. It is of tremendous importance, much greater importance than the Government by its lack of activity up to now seems to have apprehended. I have been at some pains to get at the facts. We are faced with a world timber shortage. We imported last year £52,750,000 worth of timber, the overwhelming proportion of which we could grow at home. We are importing £9,650,000 worth of wood pulp, which could be raised at home, a total of R62,000,000 per annum, 5,000,000 of it from the United States.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: On a point of Order. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if you, Sir, would rule at once whether or not on this Bill, which has a very limited Title, we shall be in Order in discussing the whole question of afforestation?

Mr. SPEAKER: I took the precaution to look up the ruling I gave in 1925, on this very same Bill I think, when the same hon. Member was moving its rejection. I then ruled that it was in Order to give some illustration in support of the claim than this work could be brought under the direct control of Parliament, which I understood to be the object of the opponents, but that it was not in order to make this, as it were, a Supply day and to discuss the administration of the Forestry Commission. I can only repeat to-day what I said then. Within limits, I think an illustration may be used to support the case for Parliamentary control.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The point I was endeavouring to make is that it is of national importance that the present methods of raising timber and the present control of the Forestry Commission by the. House should be claimed. I will obey your ruling, Sir, and not stray into technical matters, with which I am utterly incapable of dealing it any case, and I do not wish to go into details on the administration of the Forestry Commission, but I think I am entitled to show broad general reasons why in the national interest this House should take whatever steps are open to it to urge the Government to make preparations for the immediate reconstitution of the Forestry Commission. We are importing £62,000,000 worth of timber, the overwhelming proportion of which could be grown at home. I do not think that is in dispute. We are importing £4,500,000 worth of pit props. We are importing wooden manufactures, tool handles, bread platters and so on, all of which could be manufactured at home. Prices of timber are rising in face of tine world shortage. In this generation soft wood has risen in price as much as 270 per cent. Between 1890 and 1920 American soft woods have gone up 200 per cent., and wood pulp, which is the raw material for newspapers, has gone up 282 per cent. The body controlling this situation is undoubtedly the
Forestry Commission. The right hon. Gentleman very accurately said this Commission was set up as the result of the Report of the Acland Committee. Having said that, the right hon. Gentleman has not said enough. We have this Commission set up—a nominated body. I do not wish to make a personal reference to any member of the Commission, chat is not the purpose of the Amendment at all, but I think six out of the eight Commissioners represent a very definite interest—the landlord interest. Let us see how they operate. I take their own report—the Sixth Annual Report of the Forestry Commission. The average price at which they buy land for afforestation is £3 9s. 9d. an acre. That is how they treat the landlord. When they are subsidising landlords, making them a gift from the Treasury for preparing the land on which to grow timber, that timber to remain in their own possession, the State to have no say whatever about it, they give them £3 an acre. I leave the right hon. Gentleman, the watchdog of the Treasury, to give us some further enlightenment upon that indisputable fact from their own Report. What have these private landlords got? So far as I can make out from the figures, they have got since 1920 2180,000 by way of gift, and last year they got £31,000. The right hon. Gentleman should have something to say about these facts when bringing in a Forestry Bill.
What effect has the Forestry Commission upon the great national question of unemployment, in which the Government is supposed to be vitally interested? Again I take their own figures. They are employing 1,980 men in the summer, and in the winter 2,960. Let us take it at 2,000 men. In India 6,000,000 men are making a living out of the forests, and the Indian Government draws an annual profit of £2,000,000 from it. In Germany over 1,000,000 men are employed and in one department in France alone 30,000, and so on. The work of the Forestry Commission should be correlated with other Departments of State. This thing should not be allowed to continue working in a vacuum. Through the work of this Forestry Commission we could absorb thousands of unemployed men and give them work which would be economic and profitable to the State. I take the report by the Assistant Commissioner for Scot-
land (Mr. Sutherland), who declared that, allowing 4 per cent. for compound interest on the money, growing soft wood in Scotland, they could make a net profit to the State after a period of 60 years of £45 per acre. We have 500,000 unemployed. We have spent since the Armistice, £380,000,000 upon public relief, getting nothing in return—no social reconstruction whatever, not a tree grown, not a blade of grass, not a brick in a house for that £380,000,000.
You have a world famine in timber rapidly approaching, you have a country denuded of timber, you have your own Department saying they can make a profit and employ thousands more of your unemployed fellow citizens in raising this timber. Instead of developing this as a national undertaking, absorbing 5,000 or 10,000 unemployed on profitable economic work, you continue year after year, month after month and week after week paying out from the Imperial Exchequer and from the local rates, £75,000,000 a year without any return to the State whatever. I have a statement by a Scottish authority on the subject, a large timber importer, who has grown a lot of timber himself and who is now in Norway. He says that on 10,000 acres of a certain quality of peat land, not used at all at the moment, such as I understand they have on the Somme, where the French are raising timber, some 5,000 men could he employed, and they could make a profit on the growing of soft wood. As a matter of fact, the great firm of Bryant and May, match manufacturers of London, are up in Scotland now and have been during the last two or three years at Tighnabruaich, in the Kyles of Bute, buying estates and growing this timber for profit.
If we could induce the right hon. Gentleman to desist from reading us an unnecessary lecture upon the proprieties of dealing with afforestation, and face up to the economic facts, he might be doing a greater public service. On the 10,000 acres, allowing each man £2 a week, that would amount to £10,000 a week for the 5,000 men, or £500,000 a year. We are paying these men, on an average, £1 a week, or £250,000 a year, in dole. The value of the final crop that would be created in 60 years on that land by afforestation would be from 500,000 to £600,000—a huge profit. In
addition to that, the value of the land goes up, and there is the purchasing power of the wages paid to the men week by week and month by month fructifying all over industry. The people would be buying furniture, boots, clothes, etc. thereby diminishing unemployment in other directions, and at the end of it we should have a great lumbering industry, wood pulp industries and all sorts of subsidiary industries employing people economically, as is done in every other country in Europe to-day, except Portugal.

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member talks about other countries. Is he aware that the Forestry Commission are doing far more planting than is being done in any other country in the world, not excepting the United States?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes. We are planting more now. I will quote from a leading article in the London "Times" of 11th January of this year:
At the present moment, partly because of past neglect and partly because of the extra wastage caused by the War, the need for a consistent and progressive policy of afforestation in Great Britain itself is particularly urgent, more urgent even than it was when the Acland Committee presented their Report in 1918.

Mr. McNEILL: Hear, hear!

Mr. JOHNSTON: The quotation proceeds:
This once well-wooded island, which today draws something like nine-tenths of its timber supply from abroad, has less forest land per head of its population than any other country in Europe except Portugal. On the Continent timber is grown on one-third of the total land area: in Great Britain the proportion is only about four per cent.
Well might the right hon. Gentleman say that we are beginning to grow a little more now—4 per cent. against 33⅓ per cent. on the Continent, and he thinks that is a satisfactory national position to be in.
A few words with regard to the financial side of the accounts. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman or some of his supporters may say, "Yes, we could set thousands of unemployed to work growing timber, draining the land, making roads, paths, building timber houses and the rest of it, but where is
the money to come from?" As I have pointed out, the money is there now. It is being paid out without getting any national return for it. What do these accounts show? One hon. Member opposite on the 22nd of last month asked the representative in this House of the Forestry Commission what was the average cost of land bought by the Commission? I have already given the figures. He also asked the average cost of planting and the total administrative costs of the Forestry Commission since the Armistice. The reply was, that the total administrative costs amounted to £30.2,700. There may be justification for that. I do not dispute that in the initial stages of building up a big forest policy you may require to spend a bigger proportion of your funds in administration than you require to spend later on. Let us look at the figures. A sum of £302,000 spent upon administration. The cost of buying 165,000 acres, including buildings—including the houses, including the alleged standing timber, and sometimes the landlord has fobbed off bracken upon them as standing timber—was £288,000, as against administration costs of £302,000. For planting operations the cost has been £682,000. In other words, the purchase of the land and planting operations from the Armistice amounts to a total of £970,000, while the administration expenses amount to £302,000. The right hon. Gentleman made no reference to these figures.
In conclusion, I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the fact that we have no hostility to the Forestry Commission. We object to the principle of the business. We say that it is wrong that a nominated group of individuals should be spending public money and not be subject to the regular control of this House. We say that it is bail business to give a nominated group of individuals £3,500,000 and tell them that they have ten years in which to spend it, and that there is no control by this House over the way in which they spend the money. We say that that is wholly bad business. We say that it is bad financial policy, and I am surprised that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should have even hesitatingly appeared to throw his blessing over the business at all. It is not merely the spending of the money without public
control that is bad; it is not merely the fact that we have a nominated group of individuals, six out of eight of whom are landlords, nor spending the money wisely in every case, but the fact is that we are spending this money and not correlating the expenditure of the money to other national interests.
When we have 1,500,000 unemployed in this country drawing money for nothing, wasting away physically—of course, no one wants to talk sob-stuff, but the straight fact is that they are wasting physically, wasting mentally and many of them are wasting morally—when there are young men in our cities who have never done a day's work and never had a job since the Armistice, not due to their own fault but due to our national policy, an evil policy as we think, men who are going to wrack and ruin and the Government sits supinely, every Government since the Armistice has sat supinely, watching this sort of thing going on, we appeal to the Government to make up their minds that there is urgent need for a change in policy and administration. Here is one way in which we could set large numbers of unemployed to work, profitably, economically for the State and beneficially fur themselves. We ought to wipe out this useless expenditure upon ambulance work. It is not merely a question of dole money and Poor Law relief, but we have to pay at the other end; we have to build hospitals, asylums, and we have to spend more money upon tuberculosis. Money is frittered away in all sorts of directions as a result of this stupid policy. The opposition this afternoon is directed against this Bill solely for the purpose of inducing, if it can, the Government to turn their minds in another direction altogether, and instead of spending this money on ambulance work to spend it on profitable, healthy, economic employment for our people. If they do that, we shall be doing something to justify our existence here.

Mr. WALTER BAKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am very proud to have the opportunity of associating myself with the Mover of the Amendment. On broad general grounds of policy, his speech could not be bettered and it would be foolish for me to endeavour in any way whatever to add to what he has
said. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to reply to my hon. Friend by anticipation. He was extremely well advised to give his reply in anticipation, because I do not imagine for one moment that either he or any other Member sitting on the Front Bench opposite could put up a case which would demolish the speech to which we have just listened. I had an opportunity a few days ago, in speaking in Committee, to make what I regarded as a very substantial point against the Forestry Commissioners, a point which I believe is a fundamental objection to the proposal now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman did not anticipate the point which I am about to make and therefore made no attempt to reply to it. He went on to refer to the desirability of divorcing politics from forestry. It is not the first occasion within recent weeks that we have had an opportunity of watching the Government in that endeavour. I think it was in December last that this House had an opportunity of discussing the appointment of the Commissioners in connection with the British Broadcasting Corporation. On that occasion as on this there was a great desire to divorce politics from the appointment of the Commissioners, but it so happened that the chairman of that Commission was and has been an important official of the party opposite. I submit that in that case also the divorce between politics and forestry is not particularly noticeable and that it is all fudge to talk about divorcing politics from forestry when we have Commissioners appointed in the way they have been in this particular case.
5.0 p.m.
On the 16th February, speaking on the Supplementary Estimates with regard to the Forestry Commission, I called attention to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee and quoted certain extracts from it. I was anxious not to worry the House and I dealt with the matter as briefly as I could, and it may be that because of my brevity my point has not received the attention which I thought it would have received. I had certainly received the most definite assurance that, small as the audience in the House might be, statements made in Committee were always very carefully considered, so that they might receive their due weight. It does seem to me to be remarkable that after the quotation which
I made from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Gentleman who was present when I made those remarks should have come to this House to-day and should have introduced this Measure without dealing with that particular point.
I want, if I may, to start with the final Report of the Forestry Sub-committee—a Sub-committee of the Reconstruction Sub-committee. On page 63 that Subcommittee laid it down that
There should be set up a Forestry Commission consisting of a limited number of persons of whom at least half should be salaried whole-time officers.
I do hope that those words "salaried whole-time officers" will be carefully borne in mind, because the whole burden of my criticism and of the case which was considered by the Public Accounts Committee centres round those particular words. The Report goes on:
In the early years of the work, at any rate the task, to be accomplished will require the full time of at least three paid Commissioners.
Then again the Report says:
This is a big work which will for a considerable number of years need the whole energies and the whole time of the best men who can be found.
I would point, out that in that quotation very great stress is laid upon the words "whole time" and the words "whole energies." There is one further quotation—
There should be associated with them as unpaid Commissioners one or more persons who, though they may not desire to become whole-time civil servants, may nevertheless be-willing to give to the scheme during the critical early years the value of their influence and experience.
Again, in that quotation, the words used are "whole-time civil servants." Then we come to the recommendations of the Forestry Sub-committee, and the recommendation which I wish to quote is as fellows:
We recommend, therefore, that there should be set up a Commission of six members, three of whom should for the first year of the scheme be whole-time salaried officials, and the others unpaid, including the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I want to submit to the House that Lord Lovat signed that Report. Although he made a reservation, that reservation had no bearing upon this question of full-time
being devoted to the work of the Commissioners. His reservation was merely inserted and designed to emphasise the importance of a single powerful and efficient forest authority.
The first quotation I want to make from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee is from page 337, Questions 4508 and 4509. The question was asked:
What does Lord Lovat receive by way of salary—
The reply was:
£1,650 inclusive.
The next question was:
Is he a whole-time official?
The answer was:
Yes, he is there constantly; he is there full time.
On referring to Quest on 4547, I find that the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) asked witness, Mr. R. L. Robinson:
You are a whole-time officer?
The reply was:
No; so far as I know I am not any different from any other Commissioner, except that two of us are paid. There is nothing in my appointment to say I am to sit there eight hours a day on 300 days a year; so long as I do my work, and the work of the Commission goes forward satisfactorily, it does not, matter to anybody if I go away for six months.
I submit to the House that it is quite impossible to reconcile the replies given to Questions 4508 and 4109 with the reply given to Question 4547 which I have quoted. If the facts are accurately represented by the last answer, I say without fear of contradiction that the recommendations of the Forestry Sub-Committee have not been carried out. The Commissioners are net devoting their whole energies and their full time to the work of the Forestry Commission and to the nation. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult to see what justification there can be for increasing the Commissioners by two further members. This is emphasised by question 4511, in which the witness ways asked:
Lord Lovat goes away sometimes for a couple of months at a time?
The reply was:
I am always there.
The question asked then was:
I am dealing with him; he is getting paid, is not he?
The reply was:
That is so.
But the most important point to my mind is the letter which Lord Lovat addressed to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, because of this discussion. The letter is published on page 679 of the Report of the Select Committee of Public Accounts, and reads as follows—
Forestry Commission,
22, Grosvenor Gardens,
London, S.W.1.
22nd July, 1926.
DEAR SIR,
I see that under Vote 15 the question has been raised whether my services as Chairman of the Forestry Commission would be regarded as those of a whole-time civil servant or not. To clear up any misunderstanding, will you allow me to make the following statement?
When Mr. Lloyd George in 1919 asked me to act as Chairman of the Forestry Commission, I informed him in writing that I was prepared to undertake the responsibility for the organisation and direction of forestry work in the British Isles, but that in view of other interests, public and private, I could not undertake to give more than nine months' work to forestry in any one year.
When the personnel of the Forestry Commission was reappointed in 1924, Mr. Baldwin asked me to continue as Chairman. I informed Mr. Baldwin's Secretary, Sir Ronald Waterhouse, in writing, that I was quite prepared to carry on for a limited period (not for the full five years), but only on the same terms as before, and that before taking tip the appointment I should have to go abroad for four months on private business.
On the subject of remuneration, I should like to state that during my seven years' service on the Forestry Commission I have voluntarily abandoned £1,150 pay to which I was entitled. I should further like to point out, in justice to my successor, that when I made recommendations to the Treasury in 1919 on the subject of the Chairman's remuneration, I did so on the basis of nine months' work per annum. I consider that a whose-time Chairman should get (including bonus) more than a bare one-third of the sum made available by Parliament for the payment of three paid Commissioners.
I hope that those lengthy quotations will put the facts on a very definite basis. The Government is asking us to-day to increase the numbers of the Commission because the work is on the increase and because it is essential that the work should be rapidly developed, both in the starting of new woods, and in the observation of the old, but the remarkable fact is that the Commissioners have never given the whole of their services to the
Forestry Commission. The quotations which I have given show that, at the maximum, Lord Lovat had no intention of giving more than nine months a year. Looking at the Estimates for this year, I find that only two Commissioners are paid and only two Assistant Commissioners are being paid at the present moment. In those circumstances, where is the justification for this proposal to increase the number of Commissioners? Leaving aside altogether the powerful case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston)—I believe that case is unanswerable—on the general principle and the actual facts, and the details of the Commission now before the House, I say that there is absolutely no justification for increasing the number of Commissioners. Rather this House should demand that the Members should be prepared to accept what the Forestry Sub-Committee said should be their position, that of whole-time civil servants. Such men should be compelled to give their whole service and their whole energy to the work of the Forestry Commission. If they find that that is impossible, in view of other private and public interests, they should agree to resign those positions in order that other men might take over.
I have heard many criticisms made in this House with regard to the various estimates of national expenditure, but I believe that this is the first time in my hearing that a criticism of this character has been made. I regard it as being a particularly serious matter that a Forestry Commission should be conducted in the apparently loose way in which this Forestry Commission has been conducted in the past. Apparently, it is sufficient for the Commissioner to attend a periodical meeting of the full Commission, and of the sub-Committee of the Commission to which he is appointed. It may be that he will attend the full Commission at periods perhaps not more frequently than once a month, but there is nothing to show that the meetings of the sub-Committee should be held at regular intervals. If we are to have a rapidly expanding policy so far as afforestation is concerned, that type of administration is not good enough. We must find men who are prepared to tackle this job as whole-time work, and who will press
forward towards the national goal with the whole of their powers and interests. Having regard to the nature of the remuneration, I should say that the Government would have little difficulty at all in finding men willing to undertake the full-time job on the standard of the salary laid down. I venture to second the Motion.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury reminded us that the Forestry Commissioners have recently taken over some of the ancient forests which were formerly in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. I should like to pay a tribute of admiration to the Forestry Commission for their work. It is work which has to be conducted upon business and remunerative lines. But in the case of these ancient forests, I venture to express the hope that they will have regard to other considerations—considerations of their amenity value, and now unfortunately, of their scarcity value. A public word should be said to register what I am sure must be the opinion of all who care for the British countryside, that it is of great importance that these ancient forests should be preserved, and that their regulation by the Commissioners should not he strictly on the most rigid business principles of remunerative forestry. This observation is suggested by certain doubts that have been occasioned by recent dealings with certain parts of the New Forest.
Now may I come to what I think has emerged this afternoon as the principal topic. In my humble opinion the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has made a good case for this Bill. All that is in the Bill is good, and I can see no reason for voting against it. When we come to what is not in the Bill I find myself surprisingly in agreement with parts of the general proposition which has been put forward from the benches opposite. It is not because of the attack that has been developed on the work of the Forestry Commission. There has been no evidence produced to lead me to suppose that the work of the Commission has been anything but efficiently and strenuously conducted. Although I do not venture to pronounce on a matter which has been
considered by the Public Accounts Committee, it does appear to me, as regards the personal position of the Noble Lord the Chairman of the Forestry Commission, that his is a very obvious straightforward and perfectly honourable position —namely, that he accepts a salary much less than the full salary for the work, and that he does so on the distinct and express understanding that he is a part-time worker. That is a frequent arrangement in the business world.
The grounds on which I find myself in agreement with much that has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) are these. I have learned to look on the financial position of such Commissions as the Forestry Commissions as thoroughly unsound and undesirable in the structure of Parliamentary financial control. That was brought home to me most definitely by the Supplementary Estimate of the Forestry Commission presented to the House the other day. I found there what seemed to me to be an extraordinary error in financial principle. A Supplementary Estimate was introduced, and the apology for the overspending was that the programme of the Commission could not be met on the amount originally voted. That showed absolute ignorance of the basis of Parliamentary control over finance. We do not vote programmes, we vote sums of money, and if the programme of the Commission could not be met by these sums, then the programme must be cut down or discontinued. I said to myself, "This is a very important matter; but how can we bring it home to the Forestry Commission, if we want to?" There is no way of doing it. I suppose the only thing we could do, if we were hard-hearted enough, would be to move to reduce the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary, but that would be very little satisfaction even to the most hard-hearted, because it would have no effect on the Forestry Commission at all.

Mr. McNEILL: As a matter of fact, the right hon. Member and also the hon, Member opposite are mistaken. Estimates are presented every year for the Forestry Commission, and, if the Treasury had chosen to bring the programme to a standstill, all we had to do was to refuse sanction of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. YOUNG: That does not really deal with the substantial point, which is this, that when you have a Commission constituted in this way you have not got all the regular constitutional methods of enforcing Parliamentary control over its expenditure. Look at the Forestry Act and you find an attempt made to make some sort of provision. It is provided that the Forestry Commission are to render accounts to the Auditor-General. That is only the start, the beginning, of the bridge; but the bridge is not completed, and an incomplete bridge is no good at all. For efficient Parliamentary control you want first, an accounting officer going through the accounts and reporting to the Minister and, secondly, a Minister who is responsible to this House. I do not know whether the Forestry Commission have an accounting officer or not, but they have no Minister who is responsible to this House, and so you cannot bring things home to them. There is nothing we can do to bring the Forestry Commission to book if we want to; and it is a great breach in the fortifications of Parliamentary control over expenditure. The truth is that in this matter the House has been divided between two desires. When a bit of business has to be done this House always has a great desire to get that business into the hands of what is called a business body and out of the region of Departmental red tape. There is a very sound instinct in that, but, on the other hand, this House also has the equally sound instinct of maintaining Parliamentary control over expenditure and the two ideals are not reconciliable. You cannot give a free hand to a business commission and at the same time retain Parliamentary control over expenditure.
This is a case in which we have erred rather on the side of freeing a business body too much from Parliamentary control; we ought to have made it more subservient to the machinery of Parliamentary control. Finally, to illustrate the importance of this position, may I compare a big thing with a small one. What should we think if it were suggested that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty should be put in the position of the Forestry Commission, with no Minister responsible to this House and having only the barren duty of putting their accounts before the Auditor-General? We
should look on that as a most ridiculous and ignorant suggestion, neglecting all the forms of our constitution. Compare this small thing with that great one, and there is no difference. It would be just as bad for our Parliamentary control as what we have done in this case. The Financial Secretary has told us that these matters are to be considered at a certain date. It should be dealt with in this way, from this side of the House as well as from the other side, in order that when that time comes and the Forestry Commission is being re-organised, it may not be supposed that such opinions as these about this matter are purely party opinions.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) in his general discussion of the situation in regard to afforestation, except to make a few observations on one or two of the points he made. It is quite clear that this House is divided on the principle as to whether the Forestry Commission should be represented by a Minister in this House. The hon. Member for Dundee rather suggested that no other Financial Secretary would dare to make a suggestion of the kind, but I would remind the House that, during the passage of the Finance Act, 1909, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury then made the same proposal with regard to the Road Commission. I was struck with the view of the right hon. Member who has just spoken, that it is unsound to have a body of this kind unrepresented in this House largely because of the financial situation, and it is quite obvious that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer raided the Road Fund last year there was something wrong. There was obviously a lack of control somewhere. I am satisfied that the present Forestry Commission has done admirable work. Though unrepresented in this House, they have had the advantage of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker), who does his work admirably, but his presence does not give certain sections of the House the guarantee they want—namely, a Minister directly responsible, who will be able to deal with the Debate when the Estimate of the Commission is being discussed. I am quite certain that the House will view with great care any proposal to set up
a similar kind of Commission. Meanwhile, I am satisfied with the way in which the Forestry Commission is composed. The hon. Member for Dundee was rather unfair in his attack upon the Commission as a body. He taunted it with being composed of landlords, and, although he did not say so, implicitly he allowed the House to infer that the fact that they were landlords was a reason for suspecting them of base financial transactions in the purchase of land.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I say that I did not accuse the Commission of any malpractices whatever, but I remember the same right hon. Gentleman attacking a Miners Bill in this House and opposing it because of the fact that the miners were to be largely represented on the Commission.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have no recollection of any such situation, and I am sorry if I misrepresented the hon. Member. What I really want to say is that I happen to know by name most of the Members of the Commission, and during the whole time I have taken an interest in afforestation and agriculture their names have been household words in the particular branch of sylviculture. It is admitted that, young as the body is, it has done an enormous amount of first-class work throughout the country. I hold no brief for the Commission, but I am entitled to say this in reply to the remarks which have been made. No comparison can be made between the number of people employed in the forestry service in India and in this country. The forestry service in India has been in existence for three generations and the conditions are entirely different. This Commission has been in existence only for the last eight or nine years and to attempt a comparison between the number of people employed in the one case and the other is rather futile. The hon. Member for Dundee read an interesting quotation from the "Times" of 11th January of this year. If any quotation be a justification for this Bill, it was that quotation.
Let me now come to the Bill itself. As the Financial Secretary has pointed out, it is very limited in its scope. There are only two points in it. The first is the question whether this House will sanction
the increase in the number of Commissioners. At the present moment there are eight, and the House is being asked to extend that number to ten. Obviously the House will agree to the extension if it is assured that there is work for the extra number of Commissioners to do. I was satisfied with the justificaton given by the Financial Secretary. He made it perfectly plain that the Commission is extending its scope into every corner of the country. In that connection I want to know whether the work of the Commission is to be extended to the part of the country from which I come, the Highlands of Scotland. We hear every day that the Forestry Commission are doing very useful and profitable work in certain parts of Wales and England, and I want to know whether the justification for the appointment of the two extra Commissioners is the fact that their work is being vigorously extended in the northern parts of Scotland. If that work is so extended in the north of Scotland, are the Forestry Commission co-operating with the Board of Agriculture? Everyone agrees that nothing could be better than afforestation in one respect. If you wish to maintain your rural population in more or less comfortable circumstances, giving them work in winter and in summer, you must have for them a subsidiary occupation. I do not think that any occupation so suitable for rural districts as this subsidiary occupation of afforestation, has been devised. It is extremely important, if these two new Commissioners are to be appointed, that special instructions should be given to the Commission as a whole to utilise their services in the north of Scotland, and to see that the work is done on those lines.
Let me come to the second point, which is a very interesting point to the general public. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said it was the more urgent point of the two. It is urgent for the reason which he gave, but also from another point of view. Here you have a Commission not directly represented in this House, coming down and asking from this House certain extensive powers. They have the right of maintaining all lands which they possess against any intruder. They defy any Access to Mountains Bill, and they enumerate all
the things that they wish to have conserved in their own interests. It iii conceivable that any by-law which they may wish to pass will be very good, but it is equally conceivable that public rights may be interfered with. I feel bound to make that point. There has been too much of such interference recently and in the generations that have gone by. It is right that the House of Commons should see to it that no by-law is passed which is going to interfere in any way with the rights of the public, so far as the entering for the purpose of recreation or pleasure on any of the grounds which the public have hitherto been entitled to enter, is concerned. Under this Bill, all that the Commission has to do is to lay a draft by-law in either House. I think I am right in stating that.

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER: Not either, but each.

Mr. MACPHERSON: It does not matter for the purpose of my argument. The by-law has to be laid before the Houses of Parliament for twenty-one days. We all know that that is a very bad way of passing either a Bill or a bylaw.

Mr. MCNElLL: Has my right hon. Friend looked at the proviso of Clause 2?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I did my best, and I think I am right in the point that I am making. I am saying that these draft by-laws have to be laid before the Houses of Parliament for twenty-one days. I think there should be some method introduced of informing the House and those who are interested in public rights and in public access to commons and so on, when these draft by-laws are being presented. It is so easy to allow a by-law of a very iniquitous kind —I do not suggest that any such would be framed by the Forestry Commission —to slip through. I warn the Financial Secretary that the House will watch with the greatest anxiety the passage of these by-laws through the House. It is right that we should make a protest against interference by anyone or any body of men or any Commission with the public rights of the community.

Mr. MCNEILL: I do not think my right hon. Friend has seen the proviso
What he fears is impossible, apart from the by-laws. There cannot be any bylaw to interfere with existing rights.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am very glad to be reassured on that point. The House is naturally very anxious when there is any suggestion of interference with public rights.

Mr. MCNEILL: Hear, hear!

Mr. MACPHERSON: So long as I have my right hon. Friend's assurance, I am satisfied. I see that in the Forest of Dean and the New Forest, members of a body called the Court of Verderers have all their powers retained. I wondered whether there was any differentiation here, but now I am reassured. We trust that the Forestry Commission will make the fact known as publicly as possible when they propose to put through the House of Commons a draft by-law which in any shape or form may interfere with the rights of the community. I do not think there is any other point which suggests itself to me. The Bill is a very short and succinct one and very limited in scope. I shall not discuss the major problems connected with afforestation. There may be another opportunity to do that. I would impress upon the Financial Secretary that he is getting the sanction of my colleagues on this side of the House for the extension of the number of Commissioners from eight to 10 on the assurance that the work of the Commission is to be prosecuted vigorously and with the assistance and co-operation of the Board of Agriculture, so that our rural population may be maintained in good circumstances, having the splendid subsidiary employment of afforestation available.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: Now that we have had a spirited protest from Members on the other side, I trust that the Bill may be allowed to receive its Second Reading. I say that because I think that the points which the Bill raises are strictly limited in their scope, and because there will be ample opportunity within a short space of time of dealing with the whole general question in its varying aspects. I was somewhat at a loss to understand the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in view of the precise way in which the Bill is drafted and the
way in which the points he raised are dealt with. Before any by-law can be made, it has to lie on the Table of both Houses for a period of not less than 21 days, and objection may be taken to it in either House. That is as ample a safeguard as any Bill could provide. There is one point with regard to Clause 2, Sub-section (6), upon which I would like some explanation from the Minister. It relates to the question of fines. The fines, apparently, are all to be paid to the Commissioners. I hope that this will not be regarded as part of the source of revenue of the Commission The case against the Bill appears to be that no further powers should be given to a body which is not subject, so it is said,, to Parliamentary control. I venture to challenge the assertion that the doings and the work of the Commission are not in fact subject to Parliamentary control. In elaborating that argument, I think it would have been fairer to the House if an endeavour had been made to establish the ease that the Commission had failed to do good work up to the present time. That case was not established.
The Commission was set up to inert an anticipated shortage in timber, to increase permanent employment in rural areas, and to encourage land settlement. In all those directions the Commissioners have made substantial progress in the short time since they were established. What form of control is really meant, when the objection is raised? It is not clear to the House what form is sought for. At present there is control. The Estimates of the Commission have to be laid before this House and are considered by this House, and there is every opportunity of criticising the Estimates. Then again so far as Treasury control is concerned, there is control in respect of the work of the Commission, just as much as there is in regard to any other public expenditure. Above all, I feel it important that this question of afforestation should not be allowed to drift into a party question or party issue. It was to avoid any party issue that the Commission was set up on somewhat different lines from those which were recognised in the establishment of other bodies. It was felt to be most important that there should be continuity of policy. That was
one of the reasons why a 10 years' programme was set out, why a block grant of £3,500,000 was voted, and why, instead of a Minister being appointed from this House to reply to questions relating to the Commission, a Member of Parliament was appointed.
It has been suggested that an increased area of land might have been afforested during the last two or three years. I hold that Treat advance has been made. I imagine that the suggestion emanated from the fact that in the Coast Erosion Committee's Report of 1909, suggestions were made that enormous areas might be afforested. But no adequate survey had been made, and I believe that the figures which that Report contained were based more on supposition than on any definite data. There must be no stealing of agricultural land for afforestation. Land used for agricultural purposes will support more people to the acre and give them larger scope than will afforestation. We have, therefore, to balance matters carefully. While we most take every reasonable step and do everything possible to afforest land that is not being used now to the best advantage, we must also take care to see that land useful for agricultural purposes is not stolen for afforestation.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I want to support the argument of my hon. Friends on this side on strictly practical grounds, to limit myself to that, and to leave the financial aspect of the question to my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). The Financial Secretary to the Treasury used the argument that if we were successful in the attitude we adopted, we should be hampering the work of the Forestry Commission. Suppose that our ideas were adopted by the Government, and that the Commission were paced under the Ministry of Agriculture. How would that hamper the work of the Forestry Commission? We hold that, on the contrary, the work is hampered by the non-responsibility of a Ministry allied in character. I might as fairly reply to the right hon. Gentleman that he is hampering the work of the Commission because in our view—I hold it by strong conviction—the work would be better controlled and more consistently advanced if a Minister were directly responsible for it.
There is a certain parallel which suggested itself to me, because the Financial Secretary more than once alluded to forestry work as an experiment. The Development Commission is instituted to deal with experiments allied to a great extent to the Ministry of Agriculture. If, for instance, the promotion of rural industries or what not is to be set on foot by the will of Parliament, it goes to the Development Commission in the experimental stage. It only belongs to the Development. Commission while it is still in the experimental stage. We hold that forestry has passed its experimental stage, it is established as a national undertaking, and should come under the control of the House.
Drawing a parallel from the work of the Development Commission it is high time that forestry came under direct control. The Bill by implication proposes that there should be greater activity in forestry work; but it proposes that greater activity with unchanged status for the Commission. It seems to me you cannot properly separate the two things. If you want more activity you most advance the status. It seems to me also that the subordinate status of the Com- mission has been responsible for what has really amounted to lack of activity in forestry work. We know that the. Acland Committee was very fully trusted by Parliament at the time. The work was set on foot with some rapidity, but after three years, in the days of the "Geddes axe" there was a sudden cessation of this extremely necessary development. It was not only a cessation for the moment. The failure to obtain seeds and to make extended and advancing nurseries led to inevitable delay, even when Parliament desired to restore the Acland programme. That shows that this system, even though the Financial Secretary thinks it is the best possible system, did not succeed if its object was continuity.

Mr. MCNEILL: I have expressed no opinion whatever on the subject of whether Parliamentary control would be better or worse. I think the question is irrelevant on the present Bill.

Mr. BUXTON: I was under the impression that the Financial Secretary had pointed to the opinion of the Acland
Committee and had said that this was the best plan for 10 years, but I wish to argue that not for 10 years and not even for four years was it the best plan. The recent tribunal urged, as the Acland Committee did, that there should be continuity. How are you going to get continuity? It may be arguable that you will get it by a Commission somewhat removed, though not altogether removed, from the control of Parliament. But, surely, in order to achieve continuity, what you mainly want to get is the attention of Parliament and of the public. Surely, experience, if nothing else, shows that to get continuity you require a Cabinet Minister to father your forestry scheme. We have a very similar case in regard to agricultural research. How would that research have fared in the days of the "Geddes axe" if there had been no Minister responsible for it who would put up a fight? That was before the time of the Labour Government, but look at what happened also in 1924. We found to our extreme regret that the Acland programme had been disastrously cut down. It was extremely reckless in our view to knock off activities which were developing and which required very delicate and careful forecasting. That was a recklesuness, to my mind, characteristic of a good many activities of Conservative rule in recent years. But the security against this sudden reversal was not greater because of the removal from Ministerial responsibility. It was far less. Things would have been far safer had there been a Minister to represent the cause in the Cabinet, and if Parliament, through the necessary control of the Minister, had been much more aware of what was going on.
There is also a parallel case in the rather remarkable exception to the assassinations committed by the "Geddes axe" which we find in the case of agricultural research. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), who was, I think, influential in the matter, knows that a surprisingly large sum was saved for agricultural research which certainly would have been less if the matter had been under a non-Ministerial Commission. When we had control of the matter the difficulty of non-responsibility arose in an acute form, because the Commission—that is Lord Loyal; and his colleagues—
were of opinion that more might be done by associating forestry activities with small holdings. Therefore, the situation was complicated, because the Forestry Commission could not proceed with their work without getting into touch with the Ministry of Agriculture, and things were actually delayed in that year, because it was nobody's business in the Cabinet to see that the forestry question was dealt with as required. I have always been very much interested in the work of the Forestry Commission, and I felt very keenly the loss that was suffered at that extremely critical time. A somewhat similar situation existed 20 years ago when the public took up the matter of promoting small holdings. The House will remember that in 1906, in order to bring the Crown lands into more direct association with small holdings, the then Minister of Agriculture was made a Commissioner of Woods and Forests. That was done to bring those lands under direct control. That is another parallel, and I might adduce further parallels of the same kind. While the Financial Secretary started out by assuming that this view, strongly held by us, is not really in favour of or in line with advance in forestry, yet I think the arguments which he has heard from both sides of the House must have convinced him that the assumption does not go without saying, but that there is a great deal to be argued both ways. I only wish he could take an impartial view of the matter and adopt the attitude, which I think is best on purely practical grounds, that forestry requires the stimulus of Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. MCNEILL: I have tried to make it as clear as possible, that I am taking an impartial view on that matter. I do not wish in the least to prejudge the question as to whether or not there should be Parliamentary and Ministerial control. All I say is that you cannot deal with it at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman does not suppose that on this Bill we can discuss the whole of that question which the Debate has shown to be a very big controversial question. All we want to do is to get the power we are asking for in this Bill until we have an opportunity of discussing the larger question.

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: Before voting, as I wish to do, in support of this Bill, there is one small point on which I should like a definite assurance from the Minister in charge. The main part of this Debate so far has dealt with a point which, as the right hon. Gentleman has just pointed out, does not arise on this Bill at all. The question of whether the Forestry Commission should continue to do its work as at present, or whether that work should be put into the hands of a Department of the Government, does not apply in the least to this Bill. The Forestry Commission are now in charge of that work, and the Bill does not seek to alter that position in the least degree. All it does is to confer certain additional powers on the Commission, and I should not have ventured to address the House on the proposal had it not been for the fact that I happen to have a rather close personal acquaintance with two different classes of case, in regard to which questions under this Bill may arise. One is in regard to the New Forest. I remember many years ago the contest that arose between the Woods and Forests Department and the verderers of the New Forest. The Woods and Forests Department, having charge of the raising of timber, in the performance of their duties were overriding same of of the rights of the ordinary commoners and of the public. One thing which protected the commoners and, incidentally, through the commoners, protected the public, was the Vederers' Court. I may remark, incidentally, that nearly all public rights of this hind in this country have been carried through and maintained under the Ring of the rural commoner. In this case the Vederers' Court proved useful n protecting these rights, and I am glad to find that the position of the Vederers' Court is recognised in this Bill. No by-law can be made without consultation with them.
That is very good as regards the New Forest, and also as regards the Forest of Dean, and, if we were concerned only with those two forests, we might rest content. But let us take another case which is one of the most important in the country. There is a great scheme of afforestation in the Vale of Ennerdale, one of the most attractive parts of the Lake District. That has given rise to a considerable amount of doubt and
difficulty in the minds of those who are interested, above everything else, in the right of perambulation among the mountains of their native country now enjoyed by the public. I think that is a right which is prized by all classes. In the case of Ennerdale, partly through public subscription and partly through the generosity of individuals, a great part of the mountains all round has been given to the National Trust. Access to those mountains is largely through Ennerdale, not merely by way of footpaths, but over stretches of country where one may wander at will. We have been told that rights of this kind are protected. The public right of access to mountains is freely exercised at the present time, and ninny of us would like to see it protected by express Act of Parliament. Lord Bryce tried for years and years to establish that right, and it is one of the most valuable privileges or rights enjoyed by the community. I wish to know if the case of Ennerdale and other similar cases are protected under paragraph (a) in Clause 2 of the Bill. I am speaking of the right of ordinary persons such as clerks or barristers or Members of Parliament who want to get fresh air, and I wish to know if their rights in this matter are protected by Clause 2 (a). I do not think that such is the case. That Clause is drafted, and rightly drafted, to protect the rights of commoners. It reads:
no by-laws made under this Section shall take away or injuriously affect any estate, interest, right of common, or other right of a profitable or beneficial nature in, over, or affecting any land, except with the consent of the person entitled thereto.
6.0.p.m.
That seems to cover the right of common, that is, the right of people to turn out sheep on the land, but is this right or privilege of the public which I have described protected by this Clause as it stands? We cannot get the consent of every man who wants to go on the mountains, and we want something added to that Clause. I am sure that, if something could be added, it would be welcomed very much by the public, and with that assurance, that we shall have a chance of climbing the Pillar Rock again, as we have been accustomed to do, and as we hope to do again even after attaining four-score years of age, we shall be
satisfied. I only ask an assurance on that point, which is exceedingly small, but of vital importance.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The House always listens with pleasure to the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Sir A. Hopkinson) who has just sat down, and I would like to join in his plea that these new by-laws which this, in my opinion, unconstitutional body is to be empowered to make, shall not be used to hinder access to mountains on the ground that such access is not in the interests of the State. It is perfectly well known that access to mountains is not always by a definite right of way. I remember well that, some 30 years ago, High Street was all open to the public, but now it has been turned into a vast deer forest, and the opportunities of wandering over those hills have been lamentably cut down. It would be a great pity if we were to do for Ennerdale what has been done by private owners for High Street. This is only one example of what we are doing by this Bill. We are giving to this unconstitutional body additional powers as well as increasing their numbers and their scope.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite tells us that we are not properly in order in discussing, on this Bill, the question of whether or not this body is unconstitutional, but I should have thought this was exactly the opportunity to register our protest against the growth of these unconstitutional bodies which are taking over from Parliament duties which Parliament has exercised throughout the centuries. I would draw attention to the fact that almost every speech to which we have listened to-night, with the exception of that of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton), speeches delivered by old Members of Parliament well bred up in the traditions of this House, have one and all pointed to this Forestry Commission as an unconstitutional development which was depriving Parliament of part of its rightful traditional power. It is idle to say that we cannot discuss this question now. If we can make our position sufficiently strong now, on this Second Reading Debate, so that this Bill is withdrawn, why, then the Government will have obviously to reconsider altogether the question of running the afforestation of this country by a Commission instead of by a Ministry. The
hon. Member for Cambridge will, I am sure, excuse me if I say that his speech is exactly the one we do not like to hear in this House. His speech was urging that not only forestry, but other items of the national administration should be withdrawn from this House, in the interests, apparently, of continuity.
The only really continuous thing in English history is the growth of Parliament and the control exercised by Parliament in every year over fresh fields of national enterprise. We do not want now to scrap all our old ideas and to substitute for control by Parliament control by nominated bodies. It is coming in America, where over and over again you will find big cities being administered directly by non-elected bodies. It has been growing in this country too, and we must check it all we can. I maintain that the Government must make an overwhelming case in favour of Commission government before they deprive the House of Commons of their rightful interest. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that it makes no difference, and that Parliamentary control is as complete under the Commission as it would be if this Forestry Department were conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture. I think he must have made that contribution to the Debate with his tongue in his cheek, for, being at the Treasury as he is, he cannot really believe that that is the case, and, indeed, the hon. Member for Cambridge let the cat out of the bag, because he urged that Commission government should go on because it secured continuity. I presume he meant continuity whatever party was in power, and in that case, if this Commission government ensures continuity, it must obviously be depriving this House of part of its legitimate power. Indeed, everyone knows that continuity has never varied so far as the development of a thought-out policy such as that of the Forestry Commission is concerned. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) were Minister for Agriculture to-morrow, this forestry experiment of ours would go on, but I hope and believe that it would go on on different lines and that he would make himself personally responsible to this House and to the country for it and would not be content to leave it to a half unpaid, half irresponsible body of excellent private gentlemen.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) said what excellent gentlemen they were, and he pointed out that most of them were landlords. One of our chief objections to this form of Commission government is that naturally, when they are irresponsible, their private interests assume a much larger part of the consideration which other people would apply to their efforts. We appointed Electricity Commissioners the other day to develop electricity on lines parallel to these proposed forestry powers. Suppose those Electricity Commissioners had been selected because they were directors and managing directors of existing electricity companies, the House would have seen that they were not the most suitable people, although they might know most about the job, and that they would not be sufficiently impartial. I do not know the names of these Commissioners, and, while I am quite certain that they are the most honourable men in the world, yet the natural bias of their particular interest is bound to have some effect, and in the eyes of the people outside will give rise to suspicions, which in 99 cases out of 100 will be absolutely baseless. It is just that that makes public control so much better. There, if we suspect the Minister or the Ministry we have them here to question, but here, in this case, we have no one.
Look at this Report. We do not know how that money has been spent. I gather that 110,000 acres have been afforested and that a subsidy of £3 an acre has been paid by this unconstitutional body to various landlords in this country to induce them to afforest land which they would not otherwise afforest. I gather that nearly 300,000 acres have been bought, and bought a pretty considerable price, namely, £3 9s. 9d. an acre, and when hon. Members think of what most of that land is, they will see that it is a high price to pay, especially hon. Members who have experience of the Colonies, where prices are certainly on a far lower level. We do not know, in regard to those 300,000 acres from whom they were bought, or at what price, or what the rateable value of the land was before it was bought. We do not know, in fact, whether or not the purchases have been wise purchases. If it had been the Ministry of Agriculture dealing with small
holdings, we could ask questions about the price paid, the previous rateable value, the number of years' purchase, and so on, and we should know where we were, but here we do not know.
Then, if you take the acreage that has been afforested under subsidy, there too we do not know how much of that subsidy has been paid to private owners and how much to local authorities. They are lumped together, and we cannot distinguish them. We have not any definite figures to show exactly what that afforestation has cost, so that we do not know to this day whether the subsidy has been all used or how far it has been exceeded by the expenditure of private money. But my chief complaint against this Bill is that it does deal with subsidies, and that it does not secure that the whole benefit of the money spent by the taxpayer on afforestation shall come back to the public by insistence upon the purchase scheme instead of upon the subsidy scheme. I have no love for subsidies at any time, and when you subsidise the beet-sugar industry—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): This is more a question to be debated in Committee of Supply. I understand that Mr. Speaker ruled that the constitutional aspect of this question might be discussed, but that details of of administration must be left to be debated in Committee of Supply.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was merely using it as an illustration of the difficulty we are in by having to deal with a Commission, irresponsible to this House, instead of a Ministry. If we had a Minister, we could make it clear that it was undesirable to subsidise afforestation, we could make it clear that a subsidy might, divert land from a more profitable form of cultivation to a less profitable, and that the tendency, whether of a subsidy or of a protective tariff, very often is to turn production into uneconomic channels and, therefore, to throw a heavier burden upon the taxpayer than he already has to bear. But the main charge is this, that here you have a body spending vast sums of public money on subsidising private interests in this country, free from the normal criticism that any Government. Department doing that sort of work would naturally meet, and, therefore, not merely liable to
greater waste and greater mismanagement, but liable to be misunderstood more by the masses of the people of this country.
It is just that sort of work which should not be done by private interests, by a private body of gentlemen, and I believe that every Member of this House with experience of public work, while appreciating the fact that we can get eight gentlemen together, or six or seven, who will do this work voluntarily, whether it is nine months' work in the year or nine days' work in the year, will realise that it is better to have paid civil servants doing that work, day after day, according to definite rules and definite precedents, than to place the responsibility upon any body of half-paid gentlemen, whose training has not been that of civil servants, whose interests are not essentially national, but mere class interests, and who are not, therefore, however excellent in information, perfectly fitted to do this work. Let us stick to the ways we know. Let us stick to the traditions of Parliament, and do let us realise that the right hon. Gentleman himself, by his interruption of my right hon. Friend here, has joined with the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the ex-Minister of Agriculture, and all the speakers in this Debate, in urging that we should revert to the normal practice. Whether we vote for the Second Reading of this Bill or not, we should definitely urge the Government to get back to Parliamentary practice, which is the only check upon waste.

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: As far as I could understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, I think my right hon. Friend is assured of his support, but I should like to correct a misapprehension he is under. He talked about the Forestry Commissioners as a well-meaning but an unconstitutional body. May I suggest to him that a decision of Parliament can hardly be unconstitutional, and the decision in 1919 was to set up this Commission for the purpose for which it has been in existence. The point which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to raise should be raised, I think, in 1929, when we shall have to account to Parliament for what we have done with the money you gave us. When all things are considered, you
will find, I think, that we have spent the money you have given us, but we have delivered the goods, which, after all, is the most important thing. The right hon. Gentleman complains about there being only landlords on this Commission: Perhaps I may correct this impression. As a matter of fact, there are eight Commissioners at the moment, four of whom, I believe are landlords, and four are not. Therefore, it is 50–50. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names!"] Mr. Smith, Sir Hugh Murray, Mr. Robinson, and myself. I believe we are all landless, and, therefore, you may judge our capabilities as being very much inferior to those of the other four. Anyhow, we are able to hold our own when it comes to a vote.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk Northern (Mr. Buxton) talked about the lack of activity. I do not think that is a fair statement to make. I look upon the Forestry Commission—I may be prejudiced—as a body which has done excellent work, and a work of which we are not the least ashamed.

Mr. BUXTON: What I alluded to was the failure to carry out the whole of the scheme.

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: We shall carry out what Parliament has directed, and no one can say we are not doing it. When 1929 comes, I think, Parliament will find that we have done what Parliament set us to do. I suggest there is no possible argument in saying that we have lacked activity, because already we have planted more than half what we have been asked to do, and by 1929 we shall have planted the whole. Unfortunately, I was not in the House at the time, but I understand a remark was made about the paid Commissioner who appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, and was supposed to have made a statement that if he were away for six months it would not matter to anybody. I am afraid the hon. Member must lack a sense of humour. It is not suggested, I hope, that the paid Commissioner was away for six months. As a matter of fact, he had taken less than half the time allowed for holidays under the Civil Service scheme. Therefore, the charge that he is not doing the job for which he is paid should not have been made.
As to the objections which are being raised to this Bill, I will not deal with what the Reconstruction Committee suggested, for that has already been dealt with. But there are other reasons why this should not be a Government Department. It is well known to anybody who knows anything about the planting of trees that it must be a continuous policy, and a policy which looks forward a good many years. The head of the Board of Agriculture might be here to-day and gone to-morrow. There may be another type of Government some day, and the head of the Board of Agriculture in such a Government might have very different ideas from those we have. It would inevitably mean the separation of Scotland and England and Wales, because you would have to deal with the Board of Agriculture in England and Wales and with the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. That would have this very serious effect on the service generally. At the moment, the service is taken as a whole. Promotion runs right through it from one end of the country to the other; but, if you were to divide the work, it would have the effect of not giving anything like the promotion we are now able to give, and will be able to give. You would not be able to give opportunities to young men coming in, nor would you be able to offer the inducements which you would otherwise be able to do.
I think that hon. Members, if they will consider for a moment the work we have to do, will see that or the whole—we are modest people—we have nothing of which to be ashamed. We started at zero. We had to get together an organisation. We had to obtain land, and we had to set up schools. We had to assist the various universities. We had to obtain geed from the ends of the world, prepare nurseries, and buildings, and the hundred and one things involved in a great organisation like ours. During 1921 and 1922 we were checked by the Geddes Axe. Empire forestry conferences have been held, one in London in 1920 and one in Canada in 1923, and one will be held in Australia in 1928. One was also held at the Imperial Conference last year. The effect has been to stimulate the Dominions and Colonies, first of all by bringing to their notice the danger of ire. I would draw attention to the fact that whatever the
dangers may be from fire in Canada, it is probably ten times greater in a small and largely populated country like Great Britain. We are, by this Bill, increasing the number of Commissioners. The two Commissioners to be appointed will be unpaid. One, undoubtedly, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, will come back to the Commission, and I think all who know his work will agree that his knowledge of forestry is unrivalled in Great Britain. The other will be a man who will have knowledge of the sale of timber, when that becomes necessary.
The by-laws which will be made under the Bill are by-laws which are quite necessary, and there are safeguards of the rights of the public. It cannot be suggested that anybody should be allowed to walk through your forests when they are young, if you want to keep your forests from being burnt. Undoubtedly, when the trees grow high, and there is not so much need for fencing, not only against humans, but against animals, harm is not so likely to be done. When, however, trees are young, and there is undergrowth, a careless individual throwing down a cigarette or lighted match might cost the country thousands of pounds in a few minutes. Then the question has been raised of representation of the Board in I his House. I am very sorry I am not a mere important person. I can quite understand that the sport of baiting backbenchers is a very poor one compared with baiting Members on the Front Bench. It is like rat hunting to fax-hunting. All I can say is that I always have been, and I know I always will be, only too glad to give any information which may 'be required as to the work of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I desire to refer very briefly to two points which have been raised in the course of this Debate, first of all with reference to the position of the two paid Commissioners, and, secondly, with reference to the financial arrangement as regards this House. One of my hon. Friends behind, in the course of a speech in seconding the rejection of the Bill, referred to certain evidence which had been laid before the Public Accounts Committee, and the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House on behalf of the Forestry Commissioners has, of course, completely cleared
up the position regarding one of the paid Commissioners, to whom reference was made. All that I desire to say here is that hon. Members will find a summary of the facts regarding Lord Lovat in the letter addressed to me as Chairman of the Committee, and which is included in the bound volume of our proceedings last year, at the end of the Report. I am perfectly certain it was no part of the desire of my hon. Friend behind to reflect in any way on Lord Lovat on personal lines. Our attack to-night is wholly upon the system underlying this Bill, and I ought to say quite clearly that, on the evidence tendered to the Public Accounts Committee, irrespective of party, they were satisfied that the position at the time of the appointment some years ago was as stated in his Lordship's letter. As a matter of accuracy in debate, that should be made perfectly plain and clear now.
The other point is, of course, very much more important, because it turns upon the kind of financial control this House has over the Forestry Commission. This has also been the subject of review from time to time by the Public Accounts Committee, and hon. Members will find in their report the questions and the answers on the subject during their sittings in the last Parliamentary Session. So far in this Debate we haves not been reminded of the precise financial arrangements which were embodied in the scheme in 1919. What Parliament then laid down was the desirability of having a Commission so far free from strict Departmental regulation that they would he at liberty to get on with the job of afforestation; and by way of recognising the importance of continuity of policy, and making provision for the time ahead, they were provided in advance with £3,500,000 over a term of 10 years, the money to be expended at the rate of £350,000 per annum.
We come very near to the heart of this problem when we notice the precise way in which the account is presented to the House of Commons each year. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) was perfectly correct in his statement that we have a form of Parliamentary control in which that expenditure appears as a kind of estimate, but, of course, it takes the form of a grant-in-aid, and, as the House is aware, that involves no surrender of any surplus which may be
accumulated in the course of the year's working. In point of fact, during the past eight years the actual sums allocated for forestry have varied within limits from time to time, and there has been a certain carry-over to succeeding years, the usual financial arrangement being made on that point. What I desire to emphasise is, first of all, that there is something of the nature of a fixed allocation—the House is hound, of course, by the terms of the 1919 Act— and to that extent strict freedom in the matter has been modified.
In the second place, we come to the actual control by the House itself. The Commission are a body outside Parliament. They present an annual report, which gives a good deal of information regarding the work on which they are engaged, and the Public Accounts Committee review the actual expenditure, which is, of course, subject to the usual audit of the Controller and Auditor-General. But it would very often happen, I imagine, that this particular estimate would not be called on the Floor of the House at all. That, of course, is no reflection on the Commissioners, but a reflection upon the Parliamentary system, under which huge blocks of expenditure go through every year without a word of discussion, and there is, perhaps, a call to every Member of the House to consider whether we ought not to have a much better arrangement of our financial programme in order to make it perfectly certain that these things are discussed on the floor of the Chamber. More time should be given to things that matter and less to things that do not count in finance. That observation is, of course, addressed very largely to the Government side. That is the state of affairs regarding this estimate, and so it comes about—and I hope I shall not be misunderstood on the point—that on these, as on a great many other matters at the present time the only effective and detailed review or analysis is that undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee. That is characteristic of a great deal of our finance, and it applies to this problem of control of the Forestry Commission.
But all that does not excuse the step which the Government are proposing to-night. This Bill falls into two parts. One, which deals with by-laws, may be
urgent, and with the necessity for going on with that no Member in any part of the House has disagreed: in the other part, the Financial Secretary proposes to appoint two additional Commissioners. He defends this arrangement of the Bill on tae ground that if we are to review what was, in essence, a problem of 1919, of this question of financial control, or if we wish to bring the Commission under some public Department, and get its work subject to review in the House of Commons, this is not the time to do it. According to him, we must do it a year and a half hence, or at some later date. In comparison with our national expenditure of about £830,000,00C it is perfectly true to say that the expenditure with which we are concerned here is only £350,000 a year, but what is of vital importance is the principle of strict Parliamentary control, and we must take this opportunity, which is the first opportunity, of urging the undesirability of continuing for one moment longer than is necessary an arrangement which no Member has attempted to defend on financial grounds.
My suggestion is, therefore, that while the Government may very well proceed to pass the necessary by-laws I do not think there is such urgent need to appoint two additional Commissioners, and in view of the fact that the review of this scheme, which must be discussed in a year or two, should for all practical purposes he undertaken now, they might very well leave that part of their proposals aside, and say to the House, as I rather think the Treasury say behind the scenes, or the Financial Secretary might be tempted to say in public, that this financial arrangement is not one which can be continued. As to the question of elasticity, if hon. Members wish to preserve it it can be preserved, hut in existing conditions this House cannot part with the responsibility for public expenditure, and I venture to think that this is a doctrine which will be warmly supported by every member of the Public Accounts Committee, irrespective of his political faith, and irrespective of his views regarding afforestation. On a at ground, which appears to me incontestable, I think we are justified in voting against the Second Reading of this Bill.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham) has made, as he always does, a closely reasoned and very moderate speech. I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I deal with one or two points which he and his colleagues have raised. I would like to say at once, that I have no authority whatever to speak for the Forestry Commission, and I am not speaking for them. I am speaking merely as an interested amateur, a lover of forestry, who has had perhaps rather better opportunity than some hon. Members, of knowing what the Forestry Commissioners have been doing and still have to do. The same Act which established the Commission established also consultative committees for the different parts of the United Kingdom, and I have been chairman of the Committee for England since it was set up eight years ago, and that has enabled me to get a special insight into the work.
Before I say anything on the subject of control, I would like to say a word on the question of the two Commissioners. I think it is correct to say that representations were made—perfectly proper representations—that there ought to be a representative of Labour on the Commission, and Sir John Stirling-Maxwell resigned from the Commission in order to make room for Mr. W. R. Smith, who has been exceedingly useful. My recollection is that it was understood at that time that steps would be taken in the House to legalise the reappointment of Sir John Stirling-Maxwell as an additional Commissioner, because people of all parties recognise the importance and value of his help to the Commission. With regard to the other additional Commissioner no provision was made originally for a specialist Commissioner to deal with the important question of the conversion of the timber. Since the Commission were set up, the whole of the Crown Woods have been handed over to their care, and that involves not only the planting of new woods but dealing each year with vast quantities of maturing commercial timber. It is of the utmost importance to deal with it to the best advantage. As I understand it, that is the reason for proposing the appointment of a second Commissioner. I should have thought both reasons would have
appealed to hon. Members of the Party opposite as being singularly sound ones, and as the two Commissioners will not add at all to the cost of the Commission I should have thought objections might be waived.
As to the general question of control, I am most pleased to see the growing interest in forestry amongst Members in all parts of the House, and their desire to know more of what is going on, and as a House of Commons man of a good many years' standing I sympathise very fully with the desire that Parliamentary control of finance should he as complete as possible. At the same time, I beg the House to be extremely careful lest in their desire for closer control over the -expenditure on this work they should destroy the efficiency of the Commission. Let me remind the House how essential it is to success in forestry to have continuity of policy. Next year, I imagine, the House will be, considering the forestry programme for the next 10 years, because the present programme will come to an end within two years from now, and a new programme will have to be fixed by this House. Supposing that next year it was decided, as I hope it will be, greatly to increase the rate of planting commercial conifers in Great Britain. The- House must not imagine that such expansion of planting could begin at once; it would be at least five or six years before' there was any increase in the actual planting, beyond that for which preparations have been made already. To begin with, the markets of the world do not contain the seed to enable a great increase to take place. Special steps would have to be taken for collecting seed in our Colonies, along the Pacific Coast of America, and Canada, and all that cannot be done in a moment, and it may not be possible to do it in a- year. The seed has to be grown in the seed beds in nurseries, and it has to he transplanted before it is fit to go into the forest, and it is five or six years before it actually takes its place in a plantation. That makes it perfectly plain how important it is that those who have the handling of the preparation of this work should also have the handling of the fulfilment of the programme.
You cannot have successful afforestation if those in control are continually
being changed between the time the policy is framed and the time it is put into effect. I believe it would be possible to increase the effectiveness of Parliamentary control, over the expenditure of the forestry grant without necessarily having a Minister of the Crown at the head of this Department. There are other Departments like the Development Commissioners which are represented in this House by Ministers who are not the heads of the bodies concerned. A suggestion of my own would be that, instead of trying to insist on a Minister who will frequently be changed when a change of parties takes place and promotions occur being the head of the Department, a junior Minister should be a member of the Commission. He could answer questions in this House and be open to attack in regard to policy. But, he told not be the head of the body concerned who would be mainly responsible for the continuity of the policy which is so essential.

Mr. BUXTON: Will the hon. Baronet inform us how continuity would be secured in that way?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: It could be secured in two ways. First of all, by the grant of money to the Forestry Commission for a period of years. I think a ten years period was fixed when the Forestry Act was originally passed. At that time there was a Vote of £3,500,0000 to be spread over 10 years, and they were given the task of planting 150,000 additional acres in addition to inducing private owners of forests to increase their acreage. The second way is in regard to the unexpended balances which are not surrendered, so that the whole £3,500,000 is available for expenditure during the 10 years, however much any annual expenditure may fall short of one-tenth of the principal sum. I know it had to be varied. I think, as an interested critic, that it is very much to the credit of the Forestry Commission that they have been able to carry out their 10 years' programme in spite of the set back of the two years which have been mentioned. The head of the Forestry Commission is appointed for a period of 10 years, and you cannot have any greater security for continuity of
policy than that the man who was there at the beginning of the programme should handle it to the end. I think it would be a serious drawback if the Chief Forestry Commissioner happened to be a Minister who would frequently be changed with the change of political parties. Personally, I cannot see any objection to a junior Commissioner being a Minister of the Crown and being open to criticism and attach on his salary, and that would be better than a representative Commissioner who is an unpaid. Back Bench Member. But the time has not come for bringing up the question of financial control, and any variation in the system of the Forestry Commission which the Opposition may desire would be much more appropriate next year when the big Measure must come in preparing for the next 10 years period or even for a longer period. We are just winding up the first experimental period, and I hope the House will decide that the experiment has been a success, and will justify a very much larger allocation both of money and programme in the next ten years.
The hon. Member moved the rejection of this Bill drew attention quite rightly and properly to the very serious position of the cultivation of commercial timber, and he referred to the Report on that, position made by the Acland Committee dealing with woodlands. The situation in this country is far worse than was appreciated by the Acland Committee. At that time there were on the maps 3,000,000 acres of woodlands in Great Britain, and, although it was known that a considerable proportion of those woodlands gave a very small annual income or yield, yet they were treated as woodlands. Recently a survey has been made and I was chairman of a Committee responsible for carrying it out for England. I do not know the Scottish or the Welsh figures, but, so far as England is concerned, I assure the House when the figures are published hon. Members will be appalled how far short they are of the Acland figures. I think when those figures are seen and their meaning fully appreciated, the House will feel inclined to launch the Forestry Commission on its next period of activity upon a much more generous scale than has been the case in the past. This will be the time
to consider how the relationship between this House as the custodian of the public purse and the Commissioners responsible for maintaining woodlands can be regulated. I hope the Government and hon. Members opposite will take that view, and that nothing will be done to hinder the passing into law of this little Bill which I believe to be of real value to forestry in this country.

Mr. PURCELL: I think much of what has been said by the hon. Baronet who has just sat down gives us ground for opposing the proposals of this Bill in regard to the Commissioners. If we are to discuss continuity of policy, it is very clear that we shall have to consider the Admiralty which is continually changing its policy. The truth is that there appears to be less responsibility on the part of the Commissioners in regard to all the details connected with this great question of re-afforestation. The difficulty I find with regard to this matter is that we have not got a responsible Minister on the Front Bench who can reply to our questions, and I think that is a fault in the present system. Another point is that the system adopted by the Commissioners of part-time employment in connection with an enormous problem like this seems to be too niggardly and stingy when we are dealing with a national problem. The question of our timber supply and constant planting is a very important matter for this nation. I can speak with a knowledge of the Forest of Dean and certainly with some 38 years' knowledge of the timber trade generally, and I have concluded that it is a crying shame that the trees in forests generally, and more particularly in the Forest of Dean, should be allowed to get into the state they are in at the present time.
7.0.p.m.
In the Forest of Dean, so far as good oak is concerned, there is scarcely another place can equal it. I am speaking with a knowledge of hard timber extending over a very long period. I am certain, if we really desire to resume our position in so far as really good oak is concerned, we shall have to extend places like the Forest of Dean, and, instead of having a sort of limit to the area of planting, it ought to be extended. The Forest of Dean is a good area for this purpose, and the soil is the right
type for the growing of oak timber. There is no question about that, and it has been so for centuries. The point is that we desire to get rid as much as possible of the horrible timber we have at this moment, which is being turned out as oak, and which, if you took it down to the Forest of Dean, would make the oak trees shudder like a leaf. That is a small point compared with what I want to say. If we desire to get back to the very fine timber which exists in some of the wonderful historic and traditional buildings in this country, we can only do it by improving our oak supply. The same thing applies to certain other woods, but I am more concerned with oak at the moment. I am surprised that the Commissioners have not seen their way to develop this on a much larger scale. It seems to me a matter for astonishment that they should leave the fringe all round the forest when it could be rescued if it was fenced in. It would be worth doing. I cannot help thinking, if we are going to do anything with regard to timber at all, that we ought not to be so niggardly as we are in regard to the wages of the people in our employment.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: It is illegal to fence.

Mr. PURCELL: I know it is illegal to fence, hut von are asking for further powers with regard to by-laws. It seems to me that there ought to have been consultation with whoever is responsible with a view to a sort of joint attempt to rescue this part of the land. I will explain what I mean. In the district which I know best we run right into the forest and right up to the edge of some very fine young oak trees, and we have a main road running round it with a track which is torn up time and time again, and no care at all is taken with regard to the very fine trees in close proximity. That seems a piece of work to which the Commissioners might have given attention. I am not complaining about that. They are servants in the main, and I can see that they are horribly understaffed. When I hear hon. Members speaking about spending money on missions abroad, I ask: "Why could not you use a little more money on work which is being done for the improvement of the area of which I am speaking?"
I do not know much about the New Forest at all, but I daresay the same thing would apply. At the same time, the point seems to me to be that we can agree readily to what the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said with regard to this matter, and that we ought to spend more and considerably more.
It has always been a source of discomfort to me that we should go far away for some timbers which we ought to supply here at home. We could employ men on very useful work, and in addition we could give to the public a better class of furniture than they are getting at the present time. The substitutes that are used in furniture, owing to the fact that we have not got a fairly decent supply of home-grown timber, is at present one of the greatest frauds that is being imposed on the public. I am satisfied about that, and it is generally agreed upon by people who understand furniture and the wood which is used. We ought not to he in the slightest degree stingy, and; instead of having Commissioners in this sort of slip-shod way, we ought to have somebody entirely responsible to the House of Commons, so that the question can be raised in the ordinary way here.
In addition, I think we should have better reports than we are getting with regard to this question. The last one I saw was supposed to be an annual report "and it was about the most meagre report made to any outside institution, let alone the House of Commons, I have ever read. No Commissioner could justify that; very meagre report on the work which is being done at the present time. We should take account of the stages towards maturity in trees. It cannot be said that is not known, for it is known. It should be made generally known to this House and to the public what is the rate of progress towards maturity of our hard-wood timber, in particular. In addition, we ought to encourage the classes of timber people who are concerned in shipment from abroad and see to what extent we can meet something of our requirements from home-grown supplies. I think we could in a space of a few years set up, from the State point of view and from the public and general point of view, a very profitable, important, and valuable asset. Above all, I plead for it, because
I believe, having seen the forests in Mexico and on the Continent and in other places, that we are a long, long distance behind—a tremendous distance behind. We do nothing of the kind here, and, because of that, I hope there will be greater publicity and readiness to give information to the House. It is information which is easily obtainable, and the Commissioners themselves should be on the initiative with regard to that. It is not that they are merely there to spend the money and to report that they have spent so much. They should be there to show us that the work they are doing at the present time is preparatory work, and, in addition to that, that they are accepting some initiative in preparing for the future so far as fresh plantations are concerned. I do not mean taking up other lands. There is much that could be done on available land and by getting the best scientific advice and doing justice to the people in their employ, rather than paying the miserably low wages that are paid at the present time.

Mr. RILEY: Judging from the narrow limits of the Bill at present before the House and from what the Financial Secretary said in introducing the Measure, it seems to me that it would have been wiser to have allowed this matter to stand as it is until the expiry of the 10 years, when the whole question could have been gone into, but the spech of the Financial Secretary in introducing the Bill, was itself, as it seems to me, a reason why this important work of afforestation ought rot to be left as a kind of subsidiary department in which there is no kind of responsibility. In explaining the Bill to the House, the Financial Secretary gave no account whatever and no information as to the progress which has been made in the past and as to what is being done and what are the prospects with regard to the work of the Forestry Commissioners. The only thing that he did—and he may say that that was his business—was to explain the two Clauses in the Bill, firstly with regard to the Commissioners and secondly with regard to the proposed by-laws. As far as I can discover, no single reason whatever was put forward by the Financial Secretary to justify the first Clause which raises the number of Commissioners from
eight to 10. I listened attentively, and I have sat for two or three hours listening, but I am still just as much in the dark as ever as to why it is now proposed to make the Commissioners 10 instead of the existing eight.
I heard him give no explanation of any and whatever or any pretence of a reason as to why in this Bill we are having put before us a proposal to increase the Commissioners from eight to 10. The only conclusion one can come to is the presumption that ten people are better than eight. No reason whatever has been given as to why it is being done. Therefore, the Bill is reduced, as far as the justification for it is concerned, entirely- to the question of Clause 2, which deals with the question of by-laws. I am quite willing to conceive there is something to be said for by-laws which are safeguards against the danger from fire and damage to such progress as is being made with the work of afforestation. That, of course, no one will dispute. I regard that as quite an ordinary and prudent safeguard to take.
I want on that point to raise an aspect which has been raised, but not exactly in the same way, by several Members, namely, the safeguarding of the existing rights of inhabitants in the neighbourhood of forests, and those who have, either by tradition or established common rights, the right to gather loose and fallen wood. How far are those rights going to be preserved l I know quite well that the Clause does provide that the by-laws shall be subject to existing rights of that kind. I quite realise that, but I am rather afraid whether the Government are going to take the necessary means to give publicity to those whose rights may be jeopardised by the by-laws which aye contemplated in this till. It has been said that these by-laws would have to be laid for 21 days before both Houses of Parliament. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to tell us, in addition, that the Government will fulfil the obligation with regard to by-laws which is fulfilled by most of the local authorities, namely, not only that you have to have Parliamentary sanction but that you must advertise in the locality where the by-laws are going to run for at least four weeks in the public Press, so that everybody is aware, before the by-laws become enforceable,
what is going to occur. I would like to have some satisfaction on that point when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply.
I want for a moment or two to deal with what I regard as the really important thing. It is not so much a question of by-laws or the number of Commissioners, but I think we feel on this side of the House that the question of afforestation is far too important and vital to be left in the way it is now being carried on. What, after all, is the position? I have gone to some little trouble to go over the Act of 1919, and the conclusion that one comes to is that for all practical purposes the work of afforestation in this country is to-day entirely a matter for the Treasury, and that everything that the Commissioners are doing is subject to the approval of the Treasury. I venture to submit to the House that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary would claim to have any great interest in the question of afforestation, and therefore I do not think it is for the wellbeing of the interests involved in afforestation that an important work of that kind should be entirely under the control of, shall I say, the whim of the Treasury.
A plea for continuity in the work has been put forward to-day, and the argument has been used that one of the advantages of the present arrangement is that it secures continuity. This Department, however, is under the Treasury, and I venture to remind the House that, under the present Treasury, nothing that depends upon the Treasury can be sure of continuity. With a Chancellor of the Exchequer who may at any moment go back upon previous decisions, as was done in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Health Insurance, and raid the funds, what safeguard is there even that the£3,500,000 voted in 1919 will be safe if it depends upon the Treasury? I should like to remind the House, in view of the importance of the question, of the responsibility which attaches to the Treasury in the matter of afforestation. According to the Act of 1919, the Commissioners, subject to the approval of the Treasury, are entitled to make appointments, to fix salaries and to dismiss employes. All the powers that were formerly exercised by the Minister of Agriculture are now handed over to the Commissioners, over
whom and over whose work we have no control whatever. They have power to purchase, and I notice, in this Section of the Act, that, in addition to the provision as to purchase, there is the word "take." They can purchase or take on lease, utilise land and erect buildings, sell or exchange land, purchase timber from and sell to other persons, make advances and grants to private owners with regard to afforestation, and so on. These are some of the powers vested in these Commissioners, who are subject to the Treasury only so far as administration is concerned.
I submit, as others have submitted, that the question of afforestation, not only from the point of view of adequate timber supplies in this country but in its relationship to the question of unemployment, is far too vital to be left in this haphazard way, without any real and direct stimulation from this House through a Minister responsible to this House. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) referred to the unsatisfactory condition now existing as regards the density arid quality of the timber in this country. He pointed out that it was estimated that something like 3.000,000 acres of land in this country were under wood, but he also stated that further investigation showed that a large proportion of that acreage was weed of very little value, or hardly any value at all. I have gone to the trouble of looking up the figures, and I find that, in the case of the 3,000,00 acres under wood—which is only 4 per cent. of the entire area of the country—the yield per acre is only 15 cubic feet, such has been the neglect, such is the backward nature of forestry in this country. In Germany, the general yield is 27½ cubic feet per acre, but in the State forests of Prussia it is 53 cubic, feet per acre, and in Baden it is 90 cubic feet per acre, or six times the yield in this country. That is a very strong argument for a much more vigilant and virile attention to afforestation than obtains under the present arrangements.
I would add this further fact, to show how backward we are in this country in this important work. Only 4 per cent. of the land of this country is under wood. In the case of Sweden—which may be exceptional—47 per cent. of the entire area of the country is under timber; in
Germany, 25 per cent. of the total area is under timber, in France 18 per cent., and even in Belgium, a highly industrialised, small country, 17 per cent. of the total area is under timber, while in this country there is only 4 per cent. That being so, we say that something more is, required than a mere Committee of Commissioners subject to an administrative Department, if we are to come into line, make up our leeway, and deal with the question of providing useful work for the unemployed of this country. One last point. It has been said in the course of this Debate that a certain substantial progress has been made since 1919, when the programme was laid down. What are the facts? The Commissioners, in their Report, point out quite clearly that their programme was for a gradual afforestation of no less than 1,700,000 acres. That was eight years ago, and we have afforested about 200,000 acres. At the same rate, it will be 64 years before even the programme of 1919 is carried out. The Commissioners point out that, if the 1,700,000 acres were brought under afforestation, the scheme would provide permanent work for a population of 120,000 in this country. We do appeal to the Financial Secretary and the Government not to be content merely with the question of Waking by-laws, but to alter the whole constitution of the Commissioners and get the stimulus of this House applied to the work.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I support the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill, but not because I wish to hamper or restrict the work of the Commissioners in any way. The hon Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker) represents a constituency that adjoins my constituency. Mine is an industrial constituency, while of his, I suppose, 95 per cent. is agricultural land. You can step from the hon. Member's constituency into mine, where we have thousands of idle men, and you can step from my constituency into his, where there are thousands of acres of idle land. We oppose an increase in the number of the Commissioners because we believe here ought to be a responsible Minister in this House, responsible for carrying out this very important work. I remember years ago a great agitation in the Trades Union Congress about the appointment of a Minister of Labour. That was re-
jected in this House for several years, but ultimately, through agitation, we succeeded in getting a Ministry of Labour established, and to-day the Ministry of Labour is one of the most important Departments in the State. We are going to continue to agitate for the appointment of a responsible Minister for the afforestation affairs of the country, until such a Minister has been appointed and is responsible to this House for any expenditure incurred by the Commissioners.
I remember that the Prime of Australia gave a lecture at the Empire Parliamentary Association's rooms some two years ago, and he there explained that even in Australia, they were going to prohibit the export of any timber from that country. He pointed out how afforestation had developed there, and mentioned that the chief forester was an Englishman who had been trained here We train the foresters, but we send them to other countries to give the services that they ought to be giving in this country. They have their saw-mills right at the base of the forests, and the return to the State is an excellent return for the money expended in that country on afforestation.
I suppose that the hon. Member for Monmouth looks after the interests of Wales as well as those of England and Scotland. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has pointed out that the production of the woodlands is far below the anticipation even of the Acland Committee, and I am sure that that is so in Wales. As I was coming into the House just now—and I hope you will listen to this, Mr. Speaker—I saw a placard. "Mr. Speaker Wins." I began to wonder whether it referred, perhaps, to a game of golf or a game of tennis, but when I looked again I found that it was the result of a horse-race at Chepstow to-day. There we have a delightful course for horse-racing, that, so far as Wales is concerned, would be far better under afforestation; it would be far better for the country and for the unemployed if the Commissioners had selected that piece of land in order to plant trees for the production of timber. There is a world shortage of timber, and before very long we shall find it very difficult to get sufficient timber for our pits, for building houses, and for various
other requirements. Knowing something about the industries of the country, I would point out that we are practically fully developed as far as the steel, tinplate, cotton, shipping and various other industries are concerned, and, therefore, in order to deal with the question of unemployment, we must now turn to the land. We must have the land developed, and we must have afforestation extended, because that will take thousands of people who are to-day walking the roads, and put them on the land where they can do some useful work.

Mr. SCURR: I think all of us on this side of the House, as well as a number on the other side, are somewhat suspicious of any legislation that was promoted by the Coalition Government, and this is one of the legacies which we have had from them. In our judgment the Financial Secretary has not put forward any argument at all to show why we should have 10 Commissioners instead of eight, unless it is the idea that the land-owning interest should be increased. At present we have four landlords, one representative of Labour, and three others, one of whom is a Member of the majority party in this House. That already gives at least 50 per cent. to the land-owning interest, and as this legislation is being promoted by a Conservative Government., they naturally desire to increase the land-owning interest. I feel that for some years past there has been a gradual tendency in one way or another to take away from the effective control of the House of Commons over expenditure. We know how little opportunity there is for the private Member to raise any question of importance at all. It comes as the result of the organisation of our party system. Owing to the fact that the Government desires to drive its legisletion through, it keeps its own side quiet, and on the other hand the Opposition, have their broad points of view, and the consequence is that the private Member is deprived of any opportunity of effective criticism. We have seen the growth of the system whereby millions of public money are voted without discussion. Now we have a very important piece of work being done absolutely in the dark. It is impossible for us to obtain any information from time to time as to what is going on.
For example, I should like to have information on this point. Consultative Committees may be appointed by the Forestry Commission. If they have been appointed I understand they are to consist of persons who have a knowledge of forestry with representatives of the Department, and representatives of Labour. How many representatives of Labour have been appointed, and how have they been appointed? Has it been in consultation with the Agricultural Workers' Union or the Trade Union Congress or any other accredited Labour organisation? Then we are told there are to he representatives of the local bodies? Have any of them been appointed? Further we find that organisations interested in the promotion of forestry may be represented and also woodland owners. If these consultative Committees have been appointed what work have they done? Where are we to find what their recommendations have been? How are we to know what they are? How are we to know whether the Forestry Commissioners themselves have accepted or turned down their recommendations? Further in regard to the by-laws themselves, here again Parliament has no effective control. Clause 2 (2) says:—
Before any by-law made under this Act comes into operation, a draft thereof shall he laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than 21 days on which that House has sat, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty, praying that it shall be annulled, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft by-law.
Really, that is no protection at all. We know that order after order is laid on the Table of the House, but what opportunities are there to get any effective discussion in regard to them? It is a very nice little gesture on the part of the Government to say that there shall be some Parliamentary control, but once they have been laid on the Table for the 21 days, under no circumstances will they be discussed at all. The one thing the Coalition Government wanted to do was to get away from any trust in the people, it wanted to get away from any effective control by the people, and the Government by producing this Bill is
continuing that system and even worsening it by increasing the number of Commissioners. It is simply carrying on that bad work and destroying the effective control of the House over the expenditure of the Department. The figures that have been given show our neglect of afforestation as compared with other countries. Probably effective debates on reafforestation would do a great deal more good than some of the questions to which we address ourselves, but there is no real opportunity to do it. It will not be done under this Bill. I am certain the representative of the Commission in this House will he only too pleased to give any information he has at his disposal, but, however desirous he may be of doing it, the opportunities are few. I have no doubt if I met him outside, he would give me the fullest possible information he could regarding the progress of the work, but that is only given in a private capacity. It ought to be given on the floor of the House so that we may be able to criticise or approve it, and so that we might know whether the Commissioners are doing their work or whether it could be improved, and also that we might direct the expenditure of public money. I support the rejection of t he Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: This is a Bill to amend one of the Acts passed by the late Coalition. I have listened to various portions of the discussion, and the one outstanding fact, with which I think the hon. Gentleman who represents the Commission agrees, is that only 200,000 acres have been reafforested since the Act was passed. Apparently the Government imagine that the way to remedy things is to appoint two new Commissioners. Eight have not been able to do the job properly, so we will make them 10. That is not quite the right way to do it. II is the system by which the work is being carried out that is all wrong. The Commissioners may be the most intelligent and the most authoritative persons on the question of afforestation, but those who control them and limit their activities are those who hold the purse-strings at the Treasury. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has occupied many positions in his lifetime, and now represents a district that contains one or two big forests, I do not think he would claim to be an authority on afforest-
ation. I am certain the Financial Secretary would not do so. It conies to this, that every other piece of public work in the country is in the hands of people whose business it is to find out what needs to be clone and themselves very largely determine when and how it shall be done. Afforestation is one of the most important pieces of work that ought to be undertaken in any case, whether there are unemployed people or not. I suppose before 1919 there must have been dozens of Motions calling attention to the need for afforestation, mainly for the purpose of finding work for the unemployed. I do not belittle that a bit, but it is an industry that ought to he fostered and kept going. I have in my lifetime had something to do with timber and wood generally. I wonder whether anyone in the House, I wonder whether any one of these Commissioners has taken the trouble to inquire how much oak and sycamore and chestnut is being planted to replace the enormous quantity that is cleared out year by year. Going through the country in these days, you can come across wide stretches of land where there is nothing else but the roots of trees which have been cut down. No attempt has been made to grub them up and plant others in their places.
The party opposite ought to be the first people to want the sort of work done that we are asking should be done. We often hear about the work that is waiting to be done in Australia arid Canada. The emigrant in those countries is expected to grub up roots, and generally get the land into a condition for cultivation. Some of the land I have spoken of might be dealt with in that way, but in this country very large tracts ought to be dealt with on the lines of reaffoiestation and trees planted in order to replace those which have been removed. When I hear that only something like 200,000 acres have been dealt with, that in itself is the very biggest condemnation of the work of the Commissioners. I do not want to condemn them as individuals. Probably under the circumstances they have done as well as any eight men could do, but what is the use of appointing two more to perpetuate a system which has so thoroughly failed? No one has attempted to answer that, and the extraordinary thing is that the
Ministers in charge of the Bill appear to think there is nothing to answer in the criticisms which have been made and that all they have to do is to trust to the deadweight of their majority to get the Bill through. I hope that some hon. Members on the other side who are continually telling us that they wish to support industries in this country and that they wish to support the use of British goods, will think a little why it is we do not use more British timber. There are some people in this House who imagine that most English timber is not worth while for furniture and such things. As a matter of fact, English walnut, oak and sycamore is the best of wood for making good, substantial furniture, and furniture that is worth while. These woods are becoming very scarce in this country. I am speaking of something I know.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who are always talking about using British goods, bring forward this trumpery proposal to perpetuate an even more trumpery Act of Parliament, which has been a fraud on the people of this country. No one on the front bench opposite has attempted to justify, explain or defend the present position. You set up a Commission to do a certain job, and at the end of eight years it has not begun, I was going to say, even to tackle the job, certainly it has not made any effective contribution to re-afforestation or afforestation. I cannot understand the mentality of hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they continually argue that we are always willing to allow all kinds of goods to come in from the ends of the earth, and that we have no pride in what can be done in our own land. Here is a chance for them in their belief in British goods and in their desire to support British industry to help forward that work by throwing out this Bill and compelling the Government to set up a Department whose business it shall be to set about giving to future generations a supply of really good timber for the use of the nation.
How often do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us what a horrible thing it is that the unemployed should be living on doles, charity and Poor Law relief. We are always charged with never putting forward any concrete proposal. People like myself are told
that the only thing we think about is handing out other people's mooey to people who will not work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Someone said, "Hear, hear!" This particular business of afforestation has been advocated by the Labour movement ever since I have had anything to do with it, as a means of helping the unemployed. It is work that practically any of the unemployed can undertake, under decent supervision. When we train men at home and then send them abroad, one of the first things they have to do, as I know from personal experience, is to help clear the land. Clearing the land means getting rid of timber, grubbing up roots and so on.
In this country—those who travel along the roads of this country will know that what I am saying is true—there is any quantity of wooded land now lying more or less derelict, with the stumps of trees, the clearance of which would provide useful, honest, decent work for a very large number of the men who are at present living on doles. When this question was before the House on the last occasion it was said that there was great difficulty in regard to sending men away from their homes. If the Government would chose single men, it would not be necessary to send married men away from their homes. They might set up a very large number of temporary settlements where single men could live, and where the men who were put to this work would be getting the sort of training needed in the case of those who propose to go abroad or those who might later on take up permanent work.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member is now getting out of order. He is dealing with the kind of subject which I said must be kept for a Supply Day on the Estimates.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am sorry that I have at last offended. I am in earnest when I say that afforestation and re-afforestation is most excellent work which would ultimately pay very well if many thousands of single able-bodied men who cannot get work and are living on doles were organised and put to it. This Bill makes no contribution towards the furtherance of afforestation work. Even the amount of work which the Commission has done fails, because to a large
extent it has been done in little patches and not on any big scale. It is time that whatever Government is in power this question should be dealt with in a more effective manner. On the financial side, I have often wondered how we can tell what Estimate there is for the coming year. No one comes to the House and makes a statement to us as to what the Forestry Commissioners propose to do during the next financial year. We have to wait until an opportunity of this kind occurs, or until someone is lucky enough to get the question raised.

Mr. MCNEILL: There is the Estimate.

Mr. LANSBURY: There may be an Estimate, but, the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the opportunities that we have; of discussing the Estimate is very remote. The number of Estimates that we can discuss is very limited.

Mr. MCNEILL: That may be true, but that condition of things would not be in the slightest degree altered by changing the constitution of the Forestry Commission. There would be neither more nor less opportunities for discussion than at present.

Mr. LANSBURY: If one, Minister was responsible and his salary came up before the House he would perhaps do the work so effectively that we should always want to be praising him and getting him to do more. It makes all the difference when someone is responsible for a Department and we can put questions to him day by day and either condole with him or congratulate him on the work he has to do. If the right hon. Gentleman was standing here, I am sure that he would see the matter as I see it. We do not get the Parliamentary opportunity to which we are entitled of discussing such an important question as this. The sort of hybrid arrangement by which the Commissioners draw up schemes with the fear of the Treasury before their eyes and with the Treasury as partners, and as sleeping partners with them except when it comes to handing out money, is a very bad arrangement. It is an arrangement which none of us would agree to in connection with any other Department in the State. Afforestation is not work which should be left in that condition.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides that
Before any by-law made under this Act comes into operation a draft thereof shall be laid before each House a Parliament for a period of not less than twenty-one days on which that House has sat, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty praying that it shall be annulled no further proceedings shall be taken thereon.…
That sort of arrangement is quite illusory. The time when we are allowed to discuss it is generally after 11 o'clock at night. The Government is usually too busy to allow us any other time. It is a great farce to make such a provision and to allow such a slight opportunity for Members who are interested in this subject; it is no safeguard. I have read the sort of by-law that can be made and the conditions that can be laid down. There are many things that we wish to criticise and object to, but the provision for enabling us to do this is a provision which is practically no provision at all, and leaves Members of this House without any real control.
8.0 p.m.
The fact is that there has been no control of the Forestry Commission, because this great industry has been in the hands of a Commission of this kind, and the House of Commons has had very little interest in the subject. We on these benches support British industries and we want to put into practice the theories which hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite preach. We believe that Britain is as good a country to develop as any country in the world. We believe that the land which has grown some of the finest timber in the world can continue to grow it, and that our people, instead of being driven abroad 10,000 and 16,000 miles away to do exactly the same work, should be allowed to do it here, and for these reasons we object to this Bill. Making the number of Commissioners 10 does not mean that we are to get a better service from the Commission than we are now getting. None of us on these benches has attacked the Commissioners for the manner in which they have carried out their work. What we are attacking is the system which it is proposed to perpetuate and which we think is quite unworthy of the big job which we consider needs to be done. That big job is to
make it possible for a very much larger number of men and women in this country to live on the countryside.

Major CRAWFURD: Hon. Members in all parts of the House who have listened to the whole of this Debate will be anxious that we should be able to bring it to a conclusion before, under the Standing Orders of the House, we have to pass to other business. I only rise to make a suggestion, which I hope will have the effect of expediting business and bringing general agreement. It has been the main complaint, in the course of this Debate that the House of Commons has no control over the expenditure on afforestation. The hon. Baronet the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) made a plea for continuity of policy, which he said was obtained under the present system. I am quite sure he will argument that the same argument could be agree put forward on behalf of the Board of Education, the Admiralty, the War Office and many other Departments of the State. I think even he recognised that some change was desirable, because he suggested that hon. Members on this side should wait until next year, when there will be a more important Debate. The suggestion I would make is that, before the Debate ends, the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill might give us some assurance that next year, on a similar occasion, the Government will take some steps to place this Department under, for preference, the Board of Agriculture, so that this expenditure, which has been clearly shown to be of the highest importance, may be administered under a Department of the State which will be represented in this House by a responsible Minister.

Mr. THURTLE: The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Bill usually treats the House with such marked courtesy that I was astonished to see that he did not rise to reply to the series of criticisms which have been passed upon this Measure.

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have exhausted my right of reply.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reply to the specific question which was put to him by the hon. and gallant Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd)?

Mr. McNEILL: I have no objection to doing so, with the leave of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must have known perfectly well when he put his question that it was one which it is utterly impossible for me to answer. Is it really his idea of how Governments are carried on, to ask questions in the House of Commons of a subordinate Minister as to the policy of the Government next year, and that I am to give him an answer on the spur of the moment as to what the Government will do next year? If I may say so, I never heard anything more ridiculous in all my life.

Major CRAWFURN: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his performance, may I make a suggestion to him—

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has exhausted his right of speaking in this Debate.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 125.

Division No. 29.]
AYES
[8.7 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Heme) Hempst'd)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Alexander, E. E (Leyton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hurd, Percy A.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Allen,J.Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Jacob, A. E.


Apsley, Lord
Dixey, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis, R. G.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Salniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fielden, E. B.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Bennett, A. J.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Berry, Sir George
Forestier-walker, Sir L.
Loder, J. de V.


Bethel, A.
Forrest, W.
Lougher, L.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Luce Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Blundell, F. N.
Fraser, Captain tan
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Brass, Captain W.
Gates, Percy
Macintyre, Ian


Briscoe, Richard George
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. steel


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Goff, Sir Park
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Nowb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
Malone, Major P. B.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Buckingham, Sir H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Margesson, Captain D.


Bullock, Captain M.
Greenwood, Rt.Hn.Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Metier, R. I.


Burman, J. B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Merriman, F. B.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Mitcheil, S. (Lanark. Lanark)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Campbell, E. T.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cassels, J. D.
Harland, A.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hartington, Marguess of
Neville, R. J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Newman, S r R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J,
Hawke, John Anthony
Newton, Sir- D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Christie, J. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxfd,Henley)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Clarry, Reginald George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pennefather, Sir John


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Penny, Frederick George


Cooper, A. Duff
Hilton, Cecil
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cope, Major William
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Couper, J. B.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Philipson, Mabel


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Radford, E. A.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Ralne, W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Ramsden, E.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gansbro)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd,Whiteh'n)
Rentoul, G. S.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stanley, Col. Hon.G.F.(Will'sden, E.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
 Watts, Dr. T.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,ch'ts'y)
Stott, Lieut-Colonel W. H.
Wells, S. R.


Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Ropner, Major L.
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Wiggins, William Martin


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Waiter
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Rye, F. G.
Sugden, Sir Wllfrid
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Salmon, Major I.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sandeman, A. Stewart
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Withers, John James


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Wolmer, Viscount


Sandon, Lord
Tinne, J. A.
Womersley, W. J.


Savery, S. S,
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyda)


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Staney, Major P. Kenyon
Waddington, R.
Wragg, Herbert


Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward. Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)



Smithers, Waldron
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Lord Stanley.


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro")
Hardle, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hayday, Arthur
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Satey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stamford, T, W.


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, James (Ayr and Butt)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, J.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Charieton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon, Joseph M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Clynes, Rt, Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Lawrence, Susan
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lee, F.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Duntermilne)


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Dennison, R.
Mackinder, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon Josiah


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S,
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mosley, Oswald
Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gillett, George M.
Palln, John Henry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Waiter


Greenall, T,
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Purcell, A. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)



Grundy, T. W.
Riley Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. H., Normanton)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Eiland)



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — MINING INDUSTRY.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I beg to move,
That, in view of the large number of men who have not yet been able to resume their customary employment in the mining industry, this House urges the Government
to take energetic measures to augment the volume of available employment in the industry and to secure other employment for those miners who cannot be re-absorbed; further, this House deplores the action of those employers in the industry who, in the re-engagement of men, are discriminating against active trade unionists.
I should like to preface my remarks by a reference to the two terrible disasters which have taken place this week. The Welsh disaster has led to the usual
amount of talk in the country and the usual amount has appeared in the Press. There is only one thing which is gratifying to us as miners. It is this. We deplore the terrible loss of life and extend our sympathy to the wives, the mothers and dependants of our comrades who have lost their lives. The House will forgive me for saying that. But we miners feel very strongly in a matter of this kind, and I want to say that we do not want a great deal of sympathy from certain hon. Members when a disaster of this kind happens—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member must not take advantage of this occasion to make remarks of that kind.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I was drawing attention to the condition of the mining industry—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: They are quite irrelevant to the Motion.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I will obey your ruling. I want to explain the position we take in regard to mine accidents. The loss of a single miner is as much to the dependants of that miner as if it was one of 500, and every day of the year we give three lives for the coal which is produced to the country. When the House takes that fact into account they can understand the position we take up in connection with these disasters. We have used all our powers and influence to convince the Government of the necessity for ensuring the safety of the miners, but, unfortunately, it is only when a big disaster occurs that the conscience of the people is touched. We do not want great disasters to occur. We would much rather that safety were ensured to the miners than have sympathy after lives have been lost. In 1925 we had the usual heavy death rate in mines, and the usual number of non-fatal accidents peculiar to miners. As a matter of fact, we had about 43 per cent. of the total non-fatal accidents in the heavier industries of the country, and we claim that steps should be taken to safeguard the miners at work all the year through and not wait until after a disaster has occurred.
I want to refer to unemployment in the mines. Unemployment is almost a recent
thing in connection with the mining industry. Prior to the War there was very little unemployment in the mines, and I suppose it is one of the results of the War that we are suffering so much unemployment now. In the beginning of 1925 there were 7.9 unemployed in the mining industry. In June the same year there were 25 per cent. unemployed, and in December 11.3 unemployed. That brings us to the beginning of 1926 and despite the fact that we had so much unemployment among the miners, the Government of the day add an hour to their working time, right in face of the Report of the Samuel Commission which said that it was likely to add 130,000 men to the unemployed list. I do not want the House to accept my figures. Let me quote from a reply to a question which was addressed to the Secretary for Mines on the 15th February. The question was as to the number of miners working on the last available date in England, Scotland and Wales, and the number working on the 26th April last. The reply was to this effect, that on 26th April, 1926, there were 747,458 men employed in the coal mines in England, and in February the number was 695,937, a decrease of 51,521. equal to 6.89 per cent. of the total. In Wales and Monmouthshire at the same period there were 234,977 employed, and in February, 195,769: a decrease of 38,308. In the Scotch area there were 124,646 employed in April last year, and in February of this year 108,593; a, decrease of 16,053. That gives a total decrease, as compared with April, 1926, of 105,852, and it justifies my claim that we have fully 200,000 miners unemployed at the present time.
We have that number on the unemployment register, but the unemployment register does not always give the total number of miners who are idle because the mining industry has had more trouble in getting payment of unemployment benefit than any other industry in the country. It is almost enough to say that you have been previously employed in the mines to prejudice your claim for unemployment benefit. That is the condition of things against which we are protesting, and at the risk of wearying the House I want to show how this works out. In April last the output for England was 3,771,700 tons. In February of this year it was 3,540,878 tons. That was a decrease of 230,822 tons, or 6.12 per cent. It will
be remembered that the drop in the number of men employed was 6.89 per cent., and that has to be compared with a drop in output of 6.12 per cent. For the same period, in Wales and Monmouth, in April we had an output of 1,131,700 tons, and in February last a decrease of 128,269 tons, or 11.3 per cent. The percentage in the case of the men employed was 12.9. For the Scottish area we had an output of 757,400 tons, and in February of this year an output of 721,996 tons, a decrease of 35,404, but only 4'67 per cent. as compared with the previous term. In other words, the output in England and Wales has remained practically stationary despite the hour added to the working day. In Scotland for some reason or other we have increased our output. I do not know whether it is because the men are driven harder or because the conditions are more favourable there than in other areas, but, at any rate, we have done more in that direction, than other parts of Britain. Now we would like the Government to face this question in connection with unemployed miners. It is not goad for the miner to be idle for a long time. It is not good for the country to have so many men idle. The Government, so far, have added 100,000 to the number of idle men. They have done nothing whatever either to give employment or to create employment to cover the difficulty that they have created.
I want to refer to the second part of the Resolution, which alleges that employers in taking on men after the lookout have discriminated against active trade unionists. I do not believe in trying to make a picture worse than it is. We had a big fight which engendered much feeling. We had peace imposed on the victims by the victors. Employers in many cases thought it a splendid opportunity to strike at those who were most obnoxious to them. In such cases only the active men were victimised. When an employer has a large number of idle men from which to select, there are always two sections singled out for bad treatment. You have the men, probably the most skilled, who are getting on in years. In these modern days managers want men who are physically fit, men probably with stronger backs than heads, in order to do the work. We have miners being refused employment for no other
reason than that they are showing signs of age, though probably they are the most highly skilled of our mining population. Then there is the other element. In time of war there are always men who are more active than others. Miring the great dispute of last year there were committees formed at every colliery throughout Great Britain. I do not know that anyone can blame the individual members of the committees for anything that happened. The stoppage was brought about mainly by the action of the Government. There is no question at all that the rank and file of the miners were opposed to any additional working rime and to any reduction in an already inadequate wage. The men had decided, and as a result of negotiations between the miners and the Government breaking down the lock-out was enforced. I do not think that even Conservatives will claim that men who are doing committee work in time of peace should run away from their job in time of war. They would not be the men that we think they are if they ran away in time of danger.
During the long-drawn-out fight those men had become prominent. When work was resumed, with very few exceptions, the colliery managers all over the country singled out these men for special victimisation It may be that they had their own reasons, hut the best way to make a man a rebel is to prevent his getting employment. I have never claimed to be an extremist. I have my own views as to the way to bring about a change in society, but I can tell the Rouse that if I had a wife and family dependent on me, and someone refused to give me an opportunity to earn my bread by the sweat of my face, there is no doctrine that would be too extreme for me to adopt in such circumstances. Over the length and breadth of the country we have had men treated as pariahs for no other reason than that they took an active part in the fight of last year.
I want to give the House some proof. I have here a letter from a constituent of mine. I think the Secretary for Mines has the same letter. At any rate my constituent says that he has sent it on to the Minister. My correspondent con-plains that not only were men refused employment, but were refused the right to go underground to obtain their tools in order that they might have a chance
of work elsewhere. I do not know what the Minister will say about actions of that kind. Colliery managers may say that they have a right to decide whom they will or will not employ, but when a colliery manager takes up the position that he will not even allow men to go down a pit in order to collect their tools, it is something that cannot be condemned too strongly. If I am right in my assumption that unemployment in mines is a legacy of the War, then the action of the Government last year in adding another hour to the working day has doubled it. The men are in no way responsible, and it is up to the Government to do something either to create employment or to give additional help in some way to these men. We maintain that it is much better to provide work than to give money for which no work is being done, but it is not for us to suggest what is to be done. Mr. Justice Sankey, in his Report in 1919, made certain suggestions. He said the present system of working in the mines was to be condemned, and he went further than we go, because he advocated then a shortened working day, and in 1921 under certain conditions the day was to be shortened to six hours.
I suggest to the Government, as a way out of our difficulties, that until such time as they can do something to clear up the mess which they themselves have made, it would be more businesslike to have a shortened working day than to have an increased working day. The time may come when we shall require the labour of all these men, hut meantime, they are running to seed, because no work can be found for them. In some parts of the country employers have taken advantage of the action of the Government to work additional time beyond the hour allowed, and in many cases they are compelling men or asking men to violate the Eight Hours Act in connection with the working of overtime. If every man had employment, there would not be much to be said against the working of overtime, but when you have men working overtime while their comrades are going without work there is something bad in the state of society. The Secretary for Mines will be able to justify this statement. If a colliery has 60 minutes for lowering men and 60 minutes for raising men, and if the last
man down and the first man up come within the eight hours' limit, there is no room for a prosecution; or at any rate the inspectors, for some reason or another, will not prosecute, and we have the spectacle of violations of the working time taking place every day, and there is no redress. Mr. Justice Sankey rightly described the "eight hour day" as a misnomer, and in fact the average working time at present for the whole of Great Britain is 8 hours 39 minutes, and in some cases it is more. We claim that under modern conditions of mining that is scarcely necessary.
We are going deeper and deeper into the bowels of the earth. A Committee was appointed by a previous Government to inquire into industrial fatigue—the Industrial Fatigue Research Board—and among other matters which they investigated was the relation of atmospheric conditions—heat and ventilation—to the working capacity of men in coal mines. To me, as a miner, the report of that Board is very remarkable. They selected two collieries in the Eastern area, the reason for their selection being that in one case the workings went 540 feet to 660 feet below the surface, while in the other the workings reached a depth of from 2,655 feet to 2,715 feet, where the temperature was as high as 82 degrees, wet bulb. They desired to know the effect of these conditions on the productive capacity of the men employed, and their report states flat tub-filling took eight minutes in the shallow working—and 9.6 minutes in the deep working. The rate of production for the men was, calculated to he 41 per cent. less in the deep mine than in the shallow mine. There is something to think over. The employers and the colliery managers are trying to get increased production, but men are compelled to work under these conditions in deep shafts, where it is utterly impossible for the same amount of work to be done a in other mines.
Another point from this report in connection with accidents is very interesting. The accident rate also appears to be influenced by atmospheric conditions. At one colliery where the "cooling power" of the atmosphere in three seams was 15.2, 11.3 and 10.2 respectively, the rate of accidents calculated in proportion to their frequency and severity as measured
by the length of absence from work entailed, was 3.2, 4.8 and 4.9 respectively. At one colliery where the ventilation in the airways was worse than in the other, the accident severity rate for underground workers, other than colliers or trammers, was 55 per cent. greater than in the other colliery. That shows that not only is it humanly impossible to do the same amount of work in the deep mine, but that there is a greater risk to the miner in the deep mine. We who speak on behalf of the mining community desire, in every case, to safeguard the working conditions of our men, but above and beyond all we desire to save the lives of our men. I hope the House will accept this Motion as a protest against the action of the Government last year.

Mr. JOHN: I beg to second the Motion.
In calling the attention of the Government to the conditions in the mining industry, our object is to ask the Government to face the economic consequences of the so-called peace brought about in the mining industry by the legislative interference of the Government. The conditions in the mining industry at the present time are deplorable, and they have been emphasised by the disastrous accidents in Monmouthshire and Nottinghamshire. While not imputing any blame at all in connection with these two accidents, and while, undoubtedly, the Government are giving their sympathy to the relatives of the deceased miners and to the injured, I think it desirable that the Government should also turn their attention to ascertaining whether the coal-owners and the officials, obsessed with the idea of increased production and cheap production, are adopting policies at the present time which tend to minimise the possibility of accidents in mines. What do we find at present in some collieries? In order to reduce the cost of production, certain colliery examiners have been dismissed. There has been an extension of the areas of examination. Where pre-stoppage there were one examiner or two examiners for each district, under some of the largest combines in South Wales at the present time they have now placed the responsibility of two districts upon one examiner.
Take the question of the absorption of men into the industry. During the last
five or six weeks there have been 400 coal hewers absorbed in one pit, and not a single repairer, and the absence of repairers and the increase of coal hewers is bound to mean a tendency towards increasing accidents, rather than the reverse. The Motion deals specifically with unemployment and victimisation in the mining industry, and the Amendment on the Paper asks why we should single out the mining industry. Why call the attention of the Government to unemployment in the mining industry more than the other industries? The reason is because the Government, and the Government alone, are responsible for the major portion of the unemployment in the mining industry, for in no other industry have the Government introduced measures for increasing hours, but in the mining industry the Government have introduced legislation increasing the hours of work. Therefore, inasmuch as the Government are directly responsible, it is only logical and reasonable for the attention of the Government to be called to the results of their own, I was going to say, folly, or at least to their own legislative Measures. The unemployment in the mining industry at the present time is very intense, and it may be said that that is directly the result of the policy of the Government, which was adopted notwithstanding the conclusions and the recommendations of their own Commission, and notwithstanding repeated assurances from these benches as to the results of that policy. The truth of those repeated statements is verified at the present moment, so far as the conditions in the mining industry are concerned.
The coalfield finds itself embarrassed by reason of a definite and, in my opinion, permanent contraction of world markets, which synchronises with an increase in the world's productive capacity. The capacity for production in the coalfield has increased day by day, while the demand for coal has not, proportionately, increased, and the increased hours intensify the problem. If we take the output of the last few weeks as a criterion of the output for this year, we find that we have reached practically the average output pre-war and have passed the average output for the last 10 years pre-stoppage. The average output prior to the War was
about 260,000,000 tons, and for the last 10 years pre-stoppage—if we exclude 1926 and 1921, two years in which stoppages took place in the mining industry—the average output was about 248,000,000 tons, but if we take the last few weeks as a basis for calculation purposes, we find that the average output for this year will be somewhere about 260,000,000 tons. The result is that, the increased capacity for the production of coal has more than outrun the demand for coal, and we have got in the coalfield at the present time, taking the figures given in the Beard of Trade "Gazette" for last month, 200,608 unemployed. That is not quite a fair figure, as has been pointed out, because those are the numbers on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges, and our experience is that practically every week there are hundreds and hundreds of miners who are thrown off the Employment Exchanges and deprived of their rights to benefit, for some reason or another, on the ground that they have been too long unemployed or that they cannot prove reasonable efforts to secure employment.
Just consider what that means to the unemployed man in the mining areas that are one-industry areas. He travels the mining lands, he goes from one colliery to another, and he finds that every colliery has its own unemployed. He travels across the mountains, and there he finds the same difficulties and conditions, and it can be safely said, therefore, that there are at the present time somewhere about 250,000 unemployed in the mining industry. How are these men going to be employed? Is there any hope for them to be employed in the mining industry? It may be possible for a number of them to be absorbed in the natural course of developments in the immediate future, but the belief that the 250,000 are going to be absorbed in the mining industry is one that will be doomed to disappointment, because, in addition to the increased output in Great Britain, we find that America, Germany, France and Belgium have all increased their output and, in addition, France intends to increase her duties upon the importation of fuel and of anthracite coal. What will be the effect of that on the anthracite area in South Wales, which
exported into France 1,500,000 tons of every 5,000,000 tons output? To the extent that France increases her import duties on anthracite coal, it means the displacement of the anthracite area from competition with France, and that displacement will mean loss of work or irregular employment, which will increase the costs. The standing charges will be increased, there will be an increased cost for the consumers of coal, and there will be unemployment. In South Wales at present the unemployed number about 74,000, and if there is to be an increased number of unemployed in the anthracite area, how are you going to absorb them?
Take for a moment the figures of the exports from this country for two given periods. In 1913 the country exported 79,000,000 tons, 21,000,000 tons of bunker coal, and 4,000,000 tons of patent fuel, snaking a total of 104,000,000 tons. In 1925, we exported 50,000,000 tons, 16,000,000 tons of bunker coal and 4,000,000 tons of patent fuel, making a total of 70,000,000 tons. S0 you have a reduction in export as between 1925 and 1913 of 34,000,000 tons, and we have still got 200,000 men at least unemployed in the mining areas. Does anybody in this House believe that we are going to get sufficient export markets not only to make up the difference of 34,000,000 tons, but additional tonnage to absorb the unemployed in the coal mining areas at the present time? The w hole point seems to be that there must be a kind of general organisation of the mining industry in order to deal with this problem. I think this House ought to sit down seriously for a week or a fortnight to consider the whole aspect of the mining position. After all, the future of the mining industry is bound up with an entire change in our outlook and node of procedure as far as that industry is concerned, and by a scientific treatment of coal.
There is one other point, the question of victimisation. Possibly the Government will say, "What have we to do with that victimisation?" The Government are responsible for the position which makes victimisation possible, and in so far as the Government are responsible for creating the position, naturally the Government ought to be responsible for removing some of the difficulties which exist. Speaking for South Wales particularly, I say you cannot go to any
part of that area, but you find in every colliery a large number of victimised men who are unable to get a day's work. So callous are the coal owners that they are not satisfied with victimising the individual, but there are cases where the father and two or three brothers have been victimised for the so-called sins of one man. A father and three sons are unable to get employment at a colliery simply because one son is a committee man. In dozens of cases owners have refused to employ a single committee man or lodge official, simply because they have been looking after the interests of the men, and have been faithful and loyal to the duties imposed upon them.
9.0 p.m.
If the Government and the coal owners believe that they are going to smash the organisation by victimisation of those who have been engaged in the work of the organisation, they are making a great mistake, because while the present economic conditions remain in the mining areas, not only will the miners' organisation be necessary, but a more virile organisation than has existed in the past.The Government cannot evade their obligations with regard to victimisation, and they ought to take steps to approach the coal owners not only with regard to the victimised individuals but with regard to agreements. Where the local management pay no regard to the agreement which has been signed in the various counties, to that extent it is creating a great deal of friction, and if you want peace in the industry, you must remove causes of even small friction. The Government ought to approach the coal owners on this queston of victimization, and, as far as unemployment is concerned, they ought to assert their responsibilities and their powers as a Government. Unemployment is getting more serious because they refuse to govern. One of the functions of government is to look after the interests of the community, and to harness the activities of the miners and workers in general. The coal owners have failed to bring the energies and the needs of the miners into close relationship, and it is the duty of the Government to step in and bring those into closer relationship. Therefore, we move this Motion in order to call the attention of the Government to the economic consequences of their policy, to ask the Gov-
ernment to remove this particular Act, and get into touch with the coal owners on the question of policy and victimisation.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from the word "the" to the end of the Question, and add instead thereof the words
iron and steel, shipbuilding, cotton, and other industries, this House, while anxious to augment the volume of employment in all industries on sound economic lines, is unable to single out one industry for exceptional treatment in preference over others which have suffered from unemployment of even greater intensity and duration.
Meeting, as the House does to-day, practically under the shadow of two terrible disasters in the collieries of this country, there is no section or part of the House which will not agree with the references which have been made by the Mover of the Resolution to these disastrous events. It always seems to me, who have never worked in a colliery, but have had the experience of going down a number of collieries in different countries, that of all the occupations of which I know, the one I should least desire to follow is that of a coal miner. I, therefore, start the consideration of any question relating to coal-mining with the very greatest sympathy and respect for the work of the miner. I always feel that if I had to choose an occupation it would be other than going below ground, but it has also to be remembered, as is known to those of us who have lived in the neighbourhood of mining districts, such as, I have no doubt, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution has done, and I have done, that there is a large number of people in the country who do not share the views I have just expressed, and which have been received with approbation on all sides of the House. There is, in fact, a number of people in the country who do not at all look upon coal-mining as an objectionable occupation, and it is within the knowledge of all Members who have lived in coal-mining districts, that sons follow fathers in the pits as a matter of course, and prefer that occupation to many others which, from time to time, have been available to them. It has also to be remembered that, in spite of there terrible disasters, coal-mining, although a dangerous occupation, is not the most dangerous occupation, in the country.
Statistically, I believe that is so, but it does not alter the fact that, when a disaster comes in connection with coal-mining, it is of so arresting a character, it generally involves the lives of so many men, that it evokes immediate sympathy from all parts of the country.
The Seconder of the Resolution referred to the possibility that, since the dispute in the coal mining industry, the desire for increased production might have brought about some reduction in the safety measures to be taken at the pits, or the amount of inspection required If there be anything in that suggestion, it will not be to his own side of the House alone that the hon. Member can look for support in putting right anything that is wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] I am not questioning it in the least; I am not saying whether it is so or not, because I do not know; but I say that if there be anything in that suggestion I strongly agree with the necessity for inquiry. This Resolution, however, does not confine itself to the question of safety in the mines or the results of the coal mining dispute, but asks that the Government shall take measures to provide more employment in the mines and, failing that, more employment elsewhere.
The Amendment which I have the honour to move draws the attention of the House to the fact that coal mining is not the only industry suffering from unemployment—very far from it—and also, without expressing any feeling against coal mining, draws attention to the fact that other industries are not only suffering heavily but are to some extent suffering because of the coal mining dispute. A right hon. Member, one of the leaders of the Socialist party, writing just before the coal dispute last year, pointed out the great reduction in unemployment which had taken place, and it is a fact that when that dispute began the figures of unemployment were the best—if such a phrase can be used for it—that we had seen, probably, for five and a half years. Ordinary people would hardly regard that as the moment for a serious strike or lock-out—which-ever you like to call it—to be brought about, because just then there was a possibility of the country recovering from a period of great depression. And
not only were the figures comparatively good, by contrast with those of the few previous months, but the country had spent a very large sum of money on a very full inquiry into the conditions of the coal mining industry. All sections of the population had been shown what those conditions were, and had been told precisely what difficulties the industry had to face. While I agree with some of the remarks of the Mover of this Motion, I think it is a great pity to use such expressions as:
Dispute entirely caused by the Government—Government threw 100,000 men out of work.
It must be perfectly clear that statements like that are not true and cannot be substantiated. There were 97,000 odd men in the mining industry out of work at the time of the dispute, and there are to-day 200,000 out of work, so that there are 100,000 more men out of work to-day than before the dispute; but I would ask the House to note this very important fact, that while there are 100,000 fewer men engaged—roughly speaking, one-tenth less—employed in the industry, we are producing one-twentieth more coal. That is a very interesting point, because it seems to me to bear out one of the arguments used in this House from time to time as to the possibility of putting the industry on a more profitable and a more satisfactory basis.
In that connection may I say that there is one point in the Report of the Coal Commission with which I profoundly disagree. I entire y disagree with the Report where it deals with the unlikelihood of our being able to sell a larger output of coal. I think I may claim as much knowledge of trade and industry as is possessed by the average Member of the House, and I am bound to say that I have never known a time in the history of any industry when any really expert man in it would say that, if he were given a larger output at a lower price, he would net be able to sell it. I firmly believe that what applies to every other trade applies to coal. If we can produce a larger quantity of coal and sell it at a much cheaper price, we can find a market for it. That cheaper price is not necessarily to be secured through longer working hours, but by
more scientific management of the industry and putting real hard work and goodwill into it.
This Amendment has been put down because I think it grossly unfair that the Government should be called upon to deal with the mining industry alone. At the present time there are nearly 200,000 men unemployed in the iron and steel, the shipbuilding and the cotton trades, apart from any others, and in some cases these men are suffering from the result of the mining dispute. When that dispute started, the figures of unemployment went up from something like 1,100,000 to 1,600,000, and a very marked reduction took place immediately the dispute ended. What can the Government do? What is it in the power of the Government to do to help unemployment, whether in the mining industry or in these other industries, which, if anything—I do not put it higher than that—have an even greater claim upon our consideration? I am one of those who believe that the powers of the Government are extremely limited, and that the things the Government can do are mostly of a negative kind. The first thing for them to do is to cease interference with trade in every possible way. [Interruption.] I agree, as I have already said, that there must be inspections and the like, but as far as interference with trade goes, I want the Government to keep as free from it as possible, even in times of dispute. Let them hold the scales evenly—[Hon. MEMBERS: "The Eight Hours Bill!"]—as they more than undoubtedly did in the last dispute; and also let them avoid spending something like £30,000,000 of the taxpayers' money in subsidies.
There is something else they can do. When we get to saner times they can reduce taxation, and they can also consider taxation from a somewhat different angle. I think that in the past the Government's attitude about taxation has been to favour unduly the middleman and the merchant at the expense of the manufacturer. It is often forgotten that it is the manufacturer and the people who work for him who, to a large extent, are producing the wealth. We are told constantly on platforms—I do not say it is done so much in this House, because I think most hon. Members have got beyond that stage—of the dreadful things which the capitalist does.
I would like the House to consider who are these capitalists who do these dreadful things. I do not know whether certain figures given recently in the "Economist" were studied by hon. Members, but they show that in a series of large industrial concerns which were examined for the purpose—I think that something like 18 different companies were taken as examples—that over 80 per cent. of the total shares was held by people with less than £500 each invested and 36 per cent. with less than £100. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea said there were 16,000,000 capitalists in Great Britain. In the same survey of the capitalistic position a very interesting point is brought out. The percentage of people holding in those companies over £10,000 is 2 or one-fifth of 1 per cent. and in only one case was there any possibility of such a capitalist having control. Therefore the idea that the control of trade in these companies is in the hands of a few great industrialists is quite exploded, and this will readily be seen by anyone who studies the facts. Capitalists consist mainly of those who have saved a little money and if they are placed in the position of constantly having to pay 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of their profits to the Government in the form of taxation, it is manifest that there is bound to be a considerable shortage in the supply of new capital for new undertakings. It is only common sense that a man will not engage in a new enterprise if there is somebody else taking 20 or 30 per cent. of his profits, and taking no liability for his losses or share in his risks. That is the position of those responsible for a large number of the industrial proposals which are made from day to day in this country.
I have just said that the Government should reduce taxation, but I think they can do a few other things. They may not be the kind of things which are in the minds of hon. Members who put forward this Resolution. For example, the Government might use the credit of the country a little, more. Undoubtedly, during the last seven years we have secured a unique position which might have been used without danger of inflation. I think we could do a little more, especially if we could induce the country to agree with the views of those sitting
on these benches, in the way of Empire development, and the development of our Empire trade, which is now something like 50 per cent. of our total. I think we could do more with more credit in the direction of Empire settlement, and when the Government come to deal with such questions they might be able to assist the Dominions to assist us by giving them every facility for the raising of further loans. I have already said that what the Government can do is more or less of a negative character, but what the people of this country can do in this matter is certainly not of a negative character at all, but it is of a very definite character. We can bring about—I believe we are already bringing it about to a certain extent—a new spirit of co-operation in industry. I know that phrase is perhaps too often used, but there are two sides to this matter as to every other. There is the point of view of the employer who is somewhat afraid of what will happen if he holds out any further inducements to the workpeople than they are accustomed to, and until co-operation is fully established. There is also the point of view of the man to whom it is useless to offer some vain hope of gain this time next year, when his real interest in life is where he is going to get his next day's breakfast from. I think the new spirit in industry will come when labour is assured of a really definite and almost immediate return for increased production. If the man who works hard can be made to realise that his prosperity depends upon that production and co-operation, and That he will definitely and directly benefit, it will riot be long before we get that new spirit in full working order.

Dr. SALTER: Is the hon. Member not aware that the miners are producing more and are actually getting less money at the present time?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not think they are getting less, and therefore I do not believe that statement is correct. They are working longer hours but there is no question about the extra production of coal, which will end in better conditions ultimately for the miners and probably result in shorter hours and better wages for the workers. There is
one thing I think we ought to do and which we can stop, and that is the continual belittling of our own resources. A great deal of harm is being done in that way by under-estimating the skill of our own manufacturers. The men who are most concerned with the actual work do not believe these things, and other countries know pretty well what we are capable of doing, and if we can stop this belittling of our own resources the people of this country will have done a great deal towards bringing about better conditions.
I want to say one word, in conclusion, upon an aspect of this question which, is not generally put forward in this House. There is one statement made by hon. Members on the Socialist benches with which I am in profound agreement, and that is the desirability of raising the standard of life of the people, and thereby raising the consumption of goods in this country. The point where we differ from hon. Members opposite is as to how that is best to be brought about. One thing is certain, that it can only be brought about by aiming at a higher standard and by protecting ourselves at that standard. We have either to level up or level down. We have to level up working towards such a standard of life and prosperity which exists in countries like the United States, or come clown to competition with cheap labour and a lower standard of life like that which exists in some foreign countries. I think the proper course for us to follow is to continue to work for the higher standard, working always towards shorter hours and higher wages, and avoiding, above all things, lowering our standard to the basis of the competition of other countries in Europe. I hope the House will realise that in moving this Amendment I have done so not in any spirit of antagonism to the mining industry but in order to try and bring before the House the necessity of considering industry as a whole. We do not want to take any measures to spoon-feed one industry, which can only be done at the expense of others, and above all things we should remember when we come to deal with industries as a whole that the remedies do not lie in the hands of any Government, however constituted. I am glad the Government have not the power to do some of the things which they are
asked to do across the Floor of this House. The real remedy for our troubles lies in the hands of the people themselves.

Lieut-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I beg to second the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne), and in doing so I should like to be allowed to join with the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) in expressing my sincere sorrow at the two terrible disasters which during the past few days have overtaken the mining industry in supporting this Amendment, I do so, not because I am ignorant of am ignoring the very difficult times with which the mining industry is confronted, nor because, my sympathy is not as sincere, although perhaps a little less vociferous, as that of certain hon. Members on the opposite side of the House for these unfortunate men who are having so great a difficulty in finding employment to-day. I am seconding it because I consider it would be hopelessly and utterly unfair to give preferential treatment to one industry at this particular time when so many other industries are suffering from unemployment to an even far greater extent than the mining industry itself. Thanks to the activities of the representatives of the mining constituencies, and to Motions such as this, which during the past 12 or 14 months have been regularly tabled in this House, the unemployment in the mining industry has bulked large in the public eye for some considerable time, yet compared with the unemployment which is rampant in so many other trades, unemployment in the mining industry, looking at it as a whole, is comparatively insignificant.
What are the facts and what are the figures? It is not my intention to weary the House with an orgy of statistics. I am just going to put the percentages and the figures of the unemployment in the mining industry before the House and compare them with the percentages and figures of unemployment in certain industries in that part of the country from which I come, and leave it to the House to judge in which direction the activities of the Government can better be exercised. The figures that I am going to give are the figures for last January. The figures for February have to some extent been published, but they have not
yet been tabulated; at any rate they nave not been put within my reach, but the figures for January are sufficiently close for all practical purposes. It is quite true that since then there has been a small improvement of one or two points, but to all intents and purposes the figures are sufficiently accurate for the purposes which I have in view to-night. During the concluding week of last January the percentage of insured persons in the mining industry who were registered as unemployed was 16.3 per cent.—a sufficiently alarming total I am quite prepared to admit. During the same period the percentage of people in the shipbuilding trade registered as unemployed amounted to the appalling figure of 37 per cent. That is the average for all over the country. If we take the percentage for the part of the country in which my constituency is situated, we find the appalling figure of no less than 49 per cent. That practically means that one out of two of all the men normally employed in the shipbuilding trades are walking the streets trying to find a job. On the wharf and at the docks—another staple industry of my constituency—the percentage of insured persons registered as unemployed is 27 per cent. Among the sea faring folk and fishermen, it is not so easy to get accurate figures, but I am told—and from what I have seen with my own eyes I am quite prepared to believe it—that one out of every three of the fishermen and seamen are hanging about the docks ready to sign on for any job that comes along. These men are in no way responsible for this trouble that has been brought upon them. The mining industry between them—employers and the employed—are to a large extent responsible for their own troubles, but the fitters, the boilerworkers and the dockers are the innocent victims of ill-will and quarrelling in another industry.
If there is any justification for the Motion before the House to-night, it is because there is a certain risk and danger that a part of the unemployment from which the coal-mining industry is suffering may to some extent be permanent, and it may be necessary for the Government to find alternative employment for those men who have been displaced and for whom no work is available. But surely it is up to the Government, first of all, to deal with those trades where unemployment is
so much more serious. It is for them to deal with unemployment in the shipbuilding trade and the unemployment in the shipping industry generally before they attempt to touch a trade where the percentage of unemployment is so infinitely lower than it is in the trades I have already mentioned. It is possible, of course, that the coal trade may in the future never employ the same number of men as it employed before the stoppage. Now the Government by their permissive Eight Hours Act have made it possible to recover some of the markets which we have lost abroad. They have made it possible, by decreasing the costs of production and thereby decreasing the price at which we can sell the coal, to recover some of those markets which we, temporarily, I trust, have at present lost abroad. If I might suggest it, it is a far better way of dealing with the unemployment in the coal trade to recover those markets rather than, in the words of the Motion,
to secure other employment for those miners who cannot be re-absorbed.
I remember not so very long ago hearing from the lips of no less a person than the Leader of the Opposition, that the best way of curing the unemployment problem was to put every man back at the work which he was trained to perform. I entirely agree with him, and it is because I believe in that that I think it would be an infinitely better thing, if we could do it, to increase the demand for British coal in the foreign markets rather than to attempt to find new employment for the men who will be displaced if we do not succed in extending those markets.
I suppose I shall not be out of order if, as an alternative to the suggestions in the Motion, I put forward one or two suggestions with regard to the markets which have been lost and which we hope to recover. It might be well to differentiate between those markets that we must admit, however optimistic we may be, are gone from us for good and all, and those markets which we hope, with a little bit of luck and enterprise, to recover. It is not so very long ago that we used to export a considerable quantity of coal, not only anthracite coal, but also domestic and industrial coal, to New York and Newport News. Only a very few months
ago we used to export a considerable quantity of coal to the River Plate—nothing like what we exported 20 or 30 years ago, but still a very considerable quantity. I am very much afraid that the New York market, except, perhaps, for anthracite, has gone from us for good, but I think we ought to be able to recover a very considerable proportion of our River Plate trade. It is only a question of the price; it is only a question of enterprise. At the present moment, the price is very little against us; it is only a question of increasing production and reducing the cost to enable us to compete once more in that market.
Again, not so very long ago ships used to be chartered regularly to take coal to Cape Town, and even to Durban. That trade, I am very much afraid, has gone for good and all, because the proximity of the Natal coalfield does not give us much opportunity to compete there. To other ports, like Bombay, Colombo and Singapore, we used, years ago, to take large quantities of coal; but, again, Calcutta coal, at the price at which it is being sold at the present time, does not appear to me to leave us much opportunity for competition in that market if, however, we come nearer home it seems to me that the prospects are brighter, and that there is not only some chance, but a very good chance, of our being able to employ once more the vast majority of our unemployed miners at their own trade. Egypt used to be a big purchaser of Welsh coal. I think I am right in saying that Port Said and Alexandria between them took something like 500,1100 to 1,000,000 tons. I believe the Egyptian railways alone took something like 250,000 tons. Those railways have for the past year bee n running on oil and on coal from Czechoslovakia, but I am informed that the quality of the coal they have had from Czechoslovakia is not such as would encourage them to enter into contracts for the future. The cost of oil has also been considerably higher than they had anticipated, and there, again, I think there is a very excellent opportunity in the immediate future to recover, the contracts which we lost there. The same applies to Odessa. Of course, no trade is being done there at this particular moment, but not so long ago Welsh coal, and also North-country coal,
used to be exported in large quantities to Odessa, and there is a reasonable prospect that that trade may be reopened before many years are over.
Another good market for Welsh and English coal was Italy, and it is to Italy that we must look. We must recover the Italian market if we are really going to bring back into employment the men who are unemployed at the present time in the coal trade. Of course, I admit that things there are not as they were 20 years ago. The vast expansion of hydro-electric plant, the extraordinary progress they have made with water power, has to some extent reduced the demand for coal in the industries of Northern Italy, but, at the same time, we must remember that, however good and however cheap that hydroelectric power may be, it is not available, in the majority of cases, during the whole year. There are two periods in the year in Northern Italy when water power is almost unavailable. There are the three summer months, July, August and September, and there is also a month or six weeks in the winter, when the frost freezes up the water on the mountains, and an inadequate supply is sent down for the requirements. During that period coal must be used.
Most—indeed, I think I am right in saying all—of the big industrial concerns in Turin, Brescia, Bergamo, and all those industrial cities of Northern Italy, have alternative power plants, in which they can use coal or, in some cases, oil, during the period when their water supply runs short. Not so many years ago we used to export something between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 tons of coal to Genoa alone, almost entirely from South Wales, but I think I am right in saying that during 1926, instead of 1,500,000 or 1,750,000 tons, we only sent 25,000 tons. There, again, the coal which they have brought across the mountains from Czechoslovakia to make good the shortage in their water supply and replace the coal which they formerly had from Wales, has not proved too satisfactory, and I think it is only a question of a little enterprise and a little reduction in price before we can once more secure many of those contracts which, for the last two years, we have lost. I feel that I have said enough to prove that the unemployment case in the
English coal trade, serious though it may be, is not by any means desperate. I support this Amendment for two reasons—firstly, because, as I have already said, it would be unfair to give preferential treatment to an industry which is far from being the hardest hit among the industries in this country; and, secondly, because I think it would be a mistake to attempt to find alternative employment for these unemployed miners when there is such a very excellent opportunity of their being employed once more in their own trade and industry.

Mr. LAWSON: The two hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded the Amendment have used many phrases with which we are familiar. They have spoken of co-operation between Labour and capital; they have talked about the worker getting justice and, in proportion to his increase of output, getting an increase of wages. They have used many phrases, but their speeches, stripped of those terms, are frankly 'and brutally characteristic of the early nineteenth century capitalist. If, on such an occasion as this, those two hon. Gentlemen express the mind of the capitalist party opposite, if they express the mind of the governing classes of this country, then. I say there is very little hope for this country, which we on this side, love just as much as any other Members of this House. When one understands the terrible solemnity of the, feeling that has prevailed in that mine in Monmouth during the past two days, when one understands something of the solemn spirit, almost of worship, that prevails in those circumstances, and yet when we read to-night of that attack upon the Prime Minister, who went down in well-meant sympathy, I want to say to this House that that is a matter of terrible import for this country, and one that might well be a warning to the Government and the governing classes of this country, and might well make them take heed of their ways in dealing with this great industry, which involves such terrible things for the great masses of the people who are in it. Both hon. Members, I suppose, would claim to belong to the Disraelian party. Speeches such as they have made might well make that old gentleman turn in his grave. The hon. Member for Kidderminster
(Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) does not want any interference from the Government. He wants the Government to let industry alone. Then he suddenly thought to himself, "There has been a mining disaster. Of course, we must have Regulations for mining and so on."

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: It is within the recollection of the House that I began, long before I dealt with the question of the Government and industry, by agreeing with and emphasising the necessity for Government Regulation and inspection.

Mr. LAWSON: I do not deny that. What I say is that the hon. Member paused in the middle of it to emphasise that fact. But one could follow the hon. Member and the Seconder into that line of argument and show quite clearly that the capitalists only accepted Government regulation when they were compelled by the great mass of the people of the country. When the first Mines Regulation Act was put through there was a gentleman in the other House who told the Government that if inspectors went down they could stay down, and there is still on record the very definite reply of the Government of that day to the great coalowner who spoke the mind of the capitalists of that period. The hon. Member wants impartial treatment from the Government. Impartial treatment is when the Government protects his pocket and passes an Eight Hour Act and compels men to go into the mines to suffer as men have suffered during the present; week. I should like to follow that line in a detailed way, but I will not be taken too far off my own line. We are asking the Government to give special consideration to unemployment in the mining industry. The hon. Member for Kidderminster gave reasons for that himself. Mining is an industry by itself. A miner cannot go to any other industry. He is isolated. His son cannot go to any other industry. [Hon MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For the very simple reason that he is too far from other industries. The hon. Member implied that a miner goes into mining because he likes it. I read the other day of an old gentleman who had been so long in Broadmoor Asylum that, when they let him out, he went back again.
He had got used to it. It is very much the same with the members of many industries as well as miners.
But take the broad question. There is unemployment on a large scale. The figures have been given for South Wales and for Scotland, and figures could be given for the North of England. For instance, take Durham. The right hon. Gentleman is very often troubled with the state of unemployment in Durham and Northumberland. There are mines closing. They opened and then they closed. The men are not aware whether they are closed temporarily or permanently, and they do rot know whether they are closed because of foreign coal contracts or merely because there is a shortage of wagons. I live in the midst of half-a-dozen collieries. When I go home at the week-end I meet the men's representatives. They have been in touch with the employers. They are told indirectly sometimes that it is foreign coal and sometimes that it is wagons. Sometimes they are told the mines are closed permanently and sometimes that it is only temporary. The point is that we who are involved in the industry do not even know those elementary facts, and we have no right to get to know them. We are not entitled to know anything about the industry. The men in the mining industry are entitled to nothing but to die in the gloomy depths. If we do not know, is it not about time the Government was getting to know what the position is in those areas? Is it not time they were getting into touch with the coalowners to try to get some estimate of the extent of this problem? And is it not time they were taking some hand in the passing of men and their families from one district to another? I had three good women in my own home some weeks ago and this is what happened. They said, "Our husbands are in a certain part of the country working in a mine. They ate satisfied. They have even got houses to go to. We are penniless. We have no money for moving furniture, and the men are paying almost prohibitive prices for board and lodging so that they have no money to spare."
The right hon. Gentleman could do many things. He has the Mining Industry Act on the Statute Book. What are the Government doing about it? Are they doing anything at all, or are they
simply going to let the coalowners go about in the good old haphazard way they have done in the past? The hon. Member himself admitted that there are fewer employed in the industry and the output is increased and yet there are less wages coming to the men for that work. When the capitalist class reduces output, as the rubber planters have done, they increase their profit. When the miner increases his output his wages are decreased. I have heard that challenged in the House, hut I am in a position to deal with it to-night. It is about time the country knew something of what is happening in the mining areas. I believe the country is plunged in sorrow for what has happened this week. One can feel it in the streets and everywhere, and if the country had an opportunity of expressing itself, this House would not be as empty as it is to-night. I do not believe a Government that was prepared t look at this matter in the cold reasoning spirit in which the hon. Member spoke of it, would last five minutes if the people of the country could have an opportunity of dealing with it. I want the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) to pay attention to this. He is one of the architects of the misfortunes of the miners and they will not forget hire for a long time. These figures concern one of the companies that he has been particularly interested in. Here are four pay rolls. They can be examined or questioned by anyone. The output for these two men for eight days was 11 tons 13 cwt. and their wages were £2 12s. 2d. altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "Each?"] I say altogether, for both men for eight days. I wonder what the country will think about this, when they are paying now £2 10s. for a ton of coal.[HON. MEMBERS: "Three pounds!"] What will the country, which has to pay £3 for a ton of coal think when they know that there are two men in the County of Durham who produce 11 tons 13 cwts. of coal and only get £2 12s. 2d. altogether. One of the men has a wife and five children and the other has a. wife and four children. In another case, they work for eight days—these are coal hewers—and produce 9 tons 8 cwts. and their wages are £2 11s. 6d.: eight days' work, and only £2 11s. 6d. for two men. In another case, they produce 14 tons 14 cwts. and their wages are £3 8s. 1d. In
another case, they produce 6 tons 13 cwts. and the wages for two men for eight days amount to £1 13s. 6d. That is not much more than half the price of a ton of coal.
This pit where the men work is 1,700 or 1,800 feet deep. I rememeber a friend of mine having to go into the pit on one occasion, to a place where the machines were, and he had to go in like a snake, crawling upon his stomach. You cannot walk into the pit. It is a hot pit. The men look as if they are boiled alive. This is a favourite pit of the hon. Member for the Mossley Division (Mr. Hopkinson). It belongs to the Consett Coal Company: one of those perfect companies which if only they could get rid of certain types of men could do wonderful things for the men who are working. They have done wonderful things. That company has refused to employ some of the miners' officials. Although some of those officials are very mild, moderate and decent men, they have not been employed. Up and down the county of Durham—there are, I am glad to say, exceptions—owners have refused to meet the men, not Communists, but men of the best type of character in this country. I made a speech some woks ago, at the end of the conflict, when I said that I would do anything to hinder a repetition in the mining industry of what has happened in the last few years, hut I say that as sure as day follows night, if the present condition of things is to continue in the mining industry in the North, South, East and West of this country, we shall see a conflict more prolonged and more ruinous in the industry than ever before. It is written as clearly as if it were in the book of fate, and surely no man wants to see it.
Talk about discrimination! We have known a system, and it is a good system, which is called the caveling system. The men draw lots who is to go to work and who is to stop out, if the owners do not want all the men. If, say, 40 men have to receive their notices, the men put in lots as to who is to go out. Now, that old system has gone. There has been discrimination. Here we are, short of wages, working eight and a-quarter hours at the very least down in the mine, bitterness prevails, there is widespread unemployment, and then the hon. Gentle-
man opposite says, "All that can be done is that the Government, should leave us alone. Let us do what we like, and continue on the present lines." That is the capitalist outlook, pure and simple. The business of the Government is to look after the industry, to look after the country's interests and the nation's welfare. If it does that to-night, and if this House does it, it will accept this Resolution, which has been moved in the best spirit, with the best interests of the industry at heart, and with an ardent desire to do what is best for the industry and to see that the men shall have justice and decency. They have grey days, they live in narrow ways, they go down to the depths, and they die in the gloom, and we ask this House to give them, at least, an opportunity of living a decent life, and of having a little bit of fair play.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: There are two points to which I would like to refer. The first one, is the system of caveling, referred to by the hon. Member. Is he aware that the Inspector of Mines, in the last Report for Northumberland and Durham, stated that the system of caveling is a danger in the mines? If the hon. Member will look at the Report for last year, he will find that statement.

Mr. LAWSON: May I paint out that the owners for their own purposes have used the caveling system, which used to be applied for the purpose of deciding who should be employed or unemployed. It was used by the men, who cast lots as to who were to be employed. The employers have since used it for their own purpose, and have discriminated against decent men.

Mr. HOPKINSON: I merely called attention to the fact that in the opinion of the Inspector of Mines caveling is a danger in the pits. The second point raised by the hon. Member relates to the Consett Iron Company. I do not know what I have to do with the Consett Iron Company. I have never had anything to do with the directorate and I have never had anything to do with the company itself. I have no interest whatsoever in it and I do not know what the hon. Member was driving at. Having got rid of these controversial points, it will be well
if I endeavour to put before the House what I think, and what in the opinion of coalowners generally, is the immediate future of the industry in this country. When the struggle of last year began, and particularly when the struggle turned very largely upon the question of the hours worked in the pits, the whole matter was gone into very carefully. There was a great dear of discussion as to what would be the effect of an increase in the hours from seven to eight. Eventually, I think, it was a matter of common opinion that the effect, roughly, would be that within a very short time of the termination of the dispute we should be getting an output from the pits practically equivalent to the output immediately before the War, not, perhaps, the actual output of the boom period at once, but the average output for five or ten years before the War. That anticipation has been fulfilled already.
The second anticipation was that that output would be obtained with the pre-War number of men in the pits, that is, roughly, 1,000,000 men in and about the pits. That anticipation also has been fulfilled. We have, therefore, gone forward to the first stage of what was anticipated when we put forward the plea for the release of the industry from the bar to its prosperity caused by the seven hour working day, namely, that we have got the pre-War output with the pre-War number of men. The next stage of the development is this, that that output must be increased, and 't must be increased—this is the unhappy thing that has to be said but, nevertheless, it is true, if the industry is to thrive and if the country generally is thrive—with approximately the same number of men employed in the pits as the present time, that is, the pre-War number of men. It can be done with technical development. The industry is endeavouring to increase its output year by year to meet the increasing needs of the country and the increasing population, and without any great increase in the number of men who are employed. It must be obvious to hon. Members opposite, if they look at it in a reasonable light and without any idea of controversy, that, if the standard of living of the mining population is to be maintained and improved, it can only he done by increasing the average output of the country and by not increasing the
number of men employed in the same proportion. One of the great reasons why those concerned in the coal industry objected strongly to the Royal Commission's Report of last year was that, undoubtedly, the Commissioners did contemplate a drastic reduction in the size of the coal industry of Great Britain. Undoubtedly, underlying their recommendations and the whole of their Report, they had in their mind the possibility of drastically reducing the size of the industry, of artificially raising the price, and of being able by that means to continue the artificially shortened hours and the artificially high wages. From the very first, the coal owners refused to do any such thing. They said, "If we are to contemplate this being done, then it is all up, not only with our own industry but with the industrial and commercial greatness of this country."
They actually took the trouble to get figures taken out and prepared showing how, over a long period of years, the production of coal in this country had gone up steadily year by year and also showing how the population of this country has increased year after year during the same period. These returns, which were very interesting, although they have not been much noted by the general public, showed that, over a period of 50 or 60 years, the production of coal in this country per annum and the increase of population had mounted side by side, and the curves were practically parallel when they were worked out on the same scale. They remained parallel until a critical time, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) started to interfere with the coal industry. Although the population went on increasing, the production of coal in this country began to go down heavily year after year until one curve crossed the other. If hon. Members opposite will consider the matter, quite apart from any prejudice, they will, I think, be bound to agree that the whole industrial life of this country, not only of those engaged in the coal industry but of those engaged in all industries, is directly affected by the production of coal. Take the shipping industry, with its subsidiary industry of shipbuilding, and, again, its subsidiary iron and steel industry; they are all very largely dependent upon a
constantly increasing production and export of coal, coal being the only really bulky outward cargo for which we have a good overseas market. It is necessary, if we are to maintain our shipping industry, to be able to produce coal as a bulky outward cargo from this country. There are plenty of bulky inward cargoes, but we have only the one means of producing the bulky outward cargo. If we are to keep our shipping industry, we must maintain, by one means or another, those outward cargoes of coat which have been our salvation industrially and commercially in the past.
It seems to me that, if the coalowners of Great Britain had adopted the pessimistic attitude which underlies the Royal Commission's Report, they would undoubtedly have been neglecting their obvious duty to the people of Great Britain. They were determined that, in no circumstances, no matter what happened would they allow themselves to be tempted by the possibility of the drastic reduction of the industry which the Royal Commission's Report seemed to suggest. It will be said by hon. Members opposite, and with truth, that this means a very unhappy outlook for the men who have been displaced in the coal industry. Undoubtedly it does; but the only thing I can bring against that is this, that other industries will have to face the same thing. My own industry, engineering has had to face this terrible difficulty for several years, and theirs is as great a difficulty as that which has to be faced by the coal industry. We have our unemployment problem, and, unlike that of the miners it is a problem for which there is no solution in the industry itself. Every industry has this problem to face. It seems to me unfair to suggest that the unfortunate engineers, whose position is even more parlous and critical than that of the miners themselves, should be expected to bear the burden alone. Let us all do our level best to bear our own burdens, and if we can, to a certain extent, the burdens of others, but do not let us throw these burdens of unemployment in the coal mining industry upon men who have suffered far worse than the coal miners and who up to April of last year were receiving far lower wages for longer hours of work. The whole thing is not fair, and I hope that those who are
responsible for this Resolution will look at the matter in this light and have some regard for the other industries of this country.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I think I can quote a few facts which will make a fool of the statements which we have heard from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. There is the Lanelag Colliery, Llantrisant, in my division where, before the coal stoppage, 114 men were employed. Since the stoppage; it has been employing 240 men, a most unusual instance of enlarged development and increased output. The remarkable thing is that, out of the 240 men now employed, only 20 of the 114 who were employed before the stoppage have been engaged by the company. They have refused to employ 94 of the old hands, who were the ablest and most experienced men they had. These men live in the villages around this colliery, and the local tradesmen have made a protest against them not being engaged because they are suffering through lack of business. Over 200 miners have been brought in from six, 10 or 15 miles around to this colliery, while there are 94 men and boys there still idle. Most of these men have been in the service of the company from 20 to 30 years. A few of the men who have not been included have only one fault, they are men from 60 to 65 years of age, and they are deliberately left out because they are getting rather old.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Will the hon. Member tell me, just as a matter of interest, which of my arguments is this supposed to dispose of?

Mr. JONES: The argument that it is not the business of the coalowners to discourage unemployment; the argument that the company is free to employ men from anywhere, regardless of a moral obligation to their old employés. That is the argument. In this case the policy of the company has increased the number of accidents, because this pit is on the South crop, the seams are very thin and very steep, and they require far more experience and skill to work than an average coal seam. As a result of the importation of over 200 men, there has been an alarming increase in the number of accidents in this mine. This is an instance where the accidents have
more than doubled because the company have refused to employ skilled men, accustomed to these thin seams, and have brought in less skilled men from outside. Why have they done this? At first sight it would appear to be stupid and unbusinesslike, and from the point of view of efficiency it is stupid, but they have done it because they are animated by a spirit of spite and spleen against the local men who have been employed there for years. The local teen have always stood up for their rights and insisted on the old customs. These men are now paying the price for their loyalty to themselves, to the Miners' Federation, and to their class. They are deliberately left out, many of them after 20, 30 and 36 years' service with this one company.
The chairman of the miners' lodge is a miner of about 45 years of age. He has been a miner since he was 10 years old, and he is known locally as one of the most skilled men who ever took a pick in hand. He has brought up a large family of very intelligent children. He is a Welsh-speaking Welshman, a local preacher. He is not a. Communist, but a man of very moderate Labour views, always standing up for the men as their spokesman. This man, and every member of the lodge committee who has shown his sense of independence and stood for his rights, has been blackballed by the company and deliberately kept out of the pit. This is a very extreme case, so far as regards the percentage of the men who have not been reinstated, but it is typical of many colliery companies in England and Wales. We hear a great deal about a spirit of harmony which should exist between capital and labour, but there will never he goodwill as long as these tactics go on in the coalfields. No man has done more to build up the prosperity of this country than the miner, and his services will he required in the future. 'Two terrible accidents have occurred this week. They have cast a gloom over the country, but they are only an illustration of how the miner carries his life in his hands. His womenfolk never know when he leaves home whether they will see him alive again. The miner works as hard as anyone, and he is entitled to a living wage. The miner, more than the sailor on the high sea, risks his life, and I think he is entitled to special consideration.
What has the Minister of Labour done to put the Regulation under Section 18 of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, into operation? Has he laid the Regulation on the Table of this House? Under this Section he has the power to bring pressure to bear on companies, and when that Act was passing through this House it was understood that it would be the duty of the Government to help the miners in the recruitment of fresh labour. Surely it is the first step that local workmen, if they are fit and able arid willing, should get the first chance of employment in a local colliery, and that no miners from a distance should be brought in to replace them. The Government can do a great deal in that direction. I hope we shall hear from the Minister of Labour that he has not been idle, and that he will bring to hear all the pressure possible to put a stop to this kind of victimisation. Unless he does so, there is not going to be any peace in the coal industry, and without peace in the coal industry there can be no peace in any other industry.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): There are very few remarks I wish to make. Even so, I must say a few words about the two disasters of which we have heard. I have lived long enough in mining districts to realise the feelings in the village of Owm to-day. One does not need to live in a mining district, however, to share, as every one in this House shares, in a common sympathy with the people who are left behind as mourners for the victims of the disaster. After that, and I have said it very sincerely, I turn to the Motion before the House. I listened carefully to the speech of the Mover. If he will permit me to say so, the readiness of his speech betrays his country of origin, and so also does the nice little turn of invective of which he is capable. But the pessimism that he showed, I think, was alien to his original nationality. I do not know whether it is due to a prolonged stay north of the Tweed or elsewhere, but I think he must have screwed himself up or down to it, and I hope that when to-morrow comes, he will not feel it to that degree any longer.
The fact is that employment in the mining industry has improved, is improving, and is likely to improve still further.
Let me give the actual figures. Of course at the beginning of December last the effects of the coal stoppage were still being felt. The figures, in round thousands, were then 730,000 men. They had grown to 886,000 by 11th December. I ask every Member of the House to realise the steady growth of employment in the industry since then. By the 18th December the figure had grown to 925,000, and in succeeding weeks the figures were: 945,000, 952,000, 966,000, 978,000, 989,000, 996,000, 1,000,000, and on 12th February the total was 1,006,006. As far as I know there has been a continuous increase since then.

Mr. VARLEY: That is taking no cognisance of the fact that 40 per cent. of the men in the Midlands are not working full time.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am perfectly aware of all the facts to which the hon. Member alludes. I have also made sure as far as I can that the prospects are that the increase of employment will steadily continue until a considerable proportion of those who are out of employment now are absorbed; that is to say, if we get back to anything like the production of 1913. If there is any upheaval in trade, if it is not possible for the other industries of the country to consume coal, and if the price of coal is so high that it is not possible to export coal, then, of course, there will be no increase to the same extent in employment. Otherwise employment has been steadily increasing up to date, is increasing still, and will continue to increase. I ask the House to note the actual words of the Motion and the words of the Amendment, and to compare the state of affairs in the mining industry with that in the other industries mentioned in the Amendment. I would be the last to deny that where unemployment exists in the mining industry to-day it causes hardship. So it does in all the big industries, and at this moment unemployment in the mining industry is not nearly so severe as it is in the iron and steel industries, and it is not half what it is in the shipbuilding industry—[HoN. MEMBERS "Have you lengthened the hours?"]and the hours are no longer, in fact the working hours are not as long.
I beg the House to note that what tells upon industry is not only the degree of unemployment, at any given moment in
its intensity, but the duration of it, and if the House will bear in mind the history of the last few years, they will realise that, as compared with these other industries, the mining industry has been in its own circumstances fortunate. On the average, since the great slump, the rate of unemployment in the cotton trade has been half as much again as in the mining industry. In the iron and steel trades it has been three times as great, and in the shipbuilding trade it has been four times as great. Therefore, if I am to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) and pay attention to the national welfare as a whole, quite obviously I must agree with the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment in saying that preference cannot be given to an industry which has not suffered so acutely as these other big industries. That does not for a moment mean that, so far as there are means of helping any industry which are peculiar to that industry, those means should not be taken. The hon. Member who spoke last asked me about the question of recruiting. If I am to judge from the speech of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, regulations or measures for recruiting are not needed. If I am to deduce any inference from his words, it is that the mining industry is such that persons from outside industries do not want to go into it, and that he does not want these measures to deal with recruitment. I would ask him does he want us to go forward with measures for restricting recruiting to those who have been in the industry earlier or does he not?

Mr. LAWSON: Emphatically yes.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I took a note of the hon. Member's words, and he cannot have it both ways. He cannot first say that no one from outside wants to go in, and that boys only grow up and go into it because they cannot go elsewhere and then—

Mr. LAWSON: That was a Durham joke.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I found it difficult, from the somewhat agitated way in which the hon. Member spoke at the end of his remarks, to say what part was Durham jokes and what part Durham earnestness. As regards recruitment, let me assure my hon. Friends
that we have got proposals in draft and we hope to consult with the principal parties interested in the industry in the course of the next few days.
I now propose to deal with great brevity with one or two of the main attacks. The Mover of the Motion condemned the Government for their past action, and he supported his condemnation by the assertion that, although hours had been lengthened, the production per man was no greater. The Seconder of the Motion condemned the Government because, owing to the lengthening of hours, the production per man was greater. I do not know on which leg it is proposed that the condemnation should stand. As a matter of fact, it is the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Ms. John) who was right in his statement of fact, and be gave as the result of it that the production would more than outrun the demand. If there is anything in experience in the sale of any goods, and coal amongst others, it is this, that if an article is produced more economically, so that its selling price is less, its sale is greater than it would be otherwise. If that be true of any article, it is certainly true both of the export trade in coal, as we have realised by the experience of the last few years, and of the internal consumption of coal, as every employer or man in the iron and steel works or the shipbuilding trade will be able to confirm. The question of wages, I would submit, is not really germane to this Motion. I would only say to the hon. Member for Chester-le-street—I am not certain whether that was another Durham joke or not—that he produced four pay slips and treated them as though they were typical of the industry in the country.

Mr. LAWSON: There are only too many like them.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member did treat them as typical, and, therefore, he asked the House to infer that the rates of remuneration in the country are to be judged from those pay slips which he produced, and which he offered to show to any of us. I would ask him, if he will, to hand them over to me to examine, because I am willing to challenge him on this, that if he says that those particular pay slips are typical of remuneration as a whole, he is not correct. I am willing to stand by the comparison, and I will gladly await
the first general ascertainments for the different districts in order to see again by the facts who is right and who is wrong.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Assuming that these are typical, not of the whole, but of 10 per cent, or 20 per cent., is it not a scandal in any industry at this time of day?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will examine the particular cases later, but let me now take the other two charges that were brought. I have taken down, as far as I. could, the actual statements, and the first is that the Government are responsible for an increase in unemployment in the mining industry, as compared with April last, of 100,000 men. Even if that he true, what does it mean? It means that, as compared with the policy of the miners' leaders last April, we have benefited the mining industry largely in the matter of employment. I read the articles writ ten by the Member for Derby, and in his opinion, as given to him by the miners' leaders, there would have been an increase, with their policy, not of 100,000, but of 200,000. Or again, I read in an article written by the Member for Barrow (Mr. Bromley) that, if the policy of the miners' leaders had been followed, there would, on their own admission, have been an increase of unemployment among miners of no fewer than 300,000. Therefore, I am sure the mining Members in this House will be grateful that it was the Government's policy that won the day from the point of view of employment in their own industry, rather than that of their own extremist leaders. The other argument, stated quite briefly —and this one I am not going to try to traverse—was that the Government were responsible for the coal stoppage. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!] I hear the conventional cheer in reply. It is exactly what one expects. I would only ask the Member who cheered to read the report of the Trade Union Council, and let that united party settle the question between themselves.
There is one other statement that has been made, and that is about victimisation. I cannot criticise the statements that are made. Of course, I do not know the facts. We offered our mediation between the two sides, but it was refused consistently by the miners' leaders, and
if it is anyone's fault, it is their own fault for refusing that mediation. There is only one instance of victimisation of which I really do know—of a man—to use the words of the hon. Member opposite—faithful and loyal to the men he represents—and that is the victimisation of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer).

Mr. HARTSHORN: I find it exceedingly difficult to take part in a debate on the position in the mining industry, in the presence of the two great disasters which have befallen men engaged in that industry. For some reason or other, it is a little bit of a nightmare to me. I, cannot get away from the scene of yesterday morning, it is like so many scenes that I witnessed before I was ten years of age. Within a few miles of where that great disaster occurred in, South Wales I was born, and before I was 10 years of age I saw three similar disasters with all their great evils. But, in addition to seeing the evils, I also saw what is calling forth the admiration of the world to-day, the wonderful acts of heroism which take place whenever a great disaster of this kind occurs. I can just imagine yesterday morning, about one o'clock, the telephones ringing and the managers, the general managers and all the workmen rushing through the little grey valleys to the pit top, all of them anxiously waiting to descend into the jaws of death and hell, not one of them asking who is to he the first volunteer to take the risk, but everyone of them, officials and workmen alike, all ready at any moment to place his life at the disposal of the men who are entombed. That is the case with the miners, and I am not saying the miners as workers merely. It is the ease of all those engaged in the mining industry—whether workmen, officials, or mine inspectors.
There is no distinction of persons when it comes to a crisis such as that through which we are now passing. While there is such a splendid body of men engaged in the mining industry, we are called upon to-night to discuss, and have been discussing for the last two and a-half hours, the ill-treatment that has been meted out by one section of the industry to another, and when I realise the readiness with which men are prepared to risk their lives, I say to myself, "What
devil's instrument has come into this industry which prevents both sections getting together and working for a common interest?"
I would be delighted to-night to avoid saying one word of a condemnatory character, if it were possible to do so, but I want to say that in my opinion it would be well for this House and for the Government to take seriously into account the relationship which is developing between the miners on the one hand and the mineowners on the other, and of the possible consequences that may ensue unless that relationship is changed. I very much regret that the Minister of Labour;had so little to say on the question of wictimisation. I would like to give the Rouse my experience. Yesterday I was in Cardiff, dealing with disputes in my, own district which had been hanging about for 13 weeks. In one case I was dealing with a group of collieries where not a single committee man has been re-employed, although 80 per cent. of the workmen in those collieries have been found places. Those committee men have been singled out for no other reason than that in days gone by they were the representatives of the workmen as between the workmen in the collieries and the miners' headquarters. That is a state of things which cannot possibly be tolerated by the miners, and unless there is a change we are bound to have very serious trouble.
In another case I had to deal with the representatives of a very big company employing some 6,000 or 7,000 men. I tried to get them to deal with matters on the basis of the agreement. I said, "This agreement is of your own making. The men were beaten, you imposed your own terms, now carry out your terms.' I put on the table details of 20,000 minimum wage cases which had been settled on a certain basis, and I said, "You put down one case against those 20,000; show a single exception to that rule and that agreement." They could not. They admitted that the custom and the practice had existed for over 20 years, and they admitted that the agreement they had forced upon the workmen provided that in so far as those customs and practices could be established, and except to the extent to which they had been varied by the agreement, they were
part of the contract; and yet they declined, in the face of 20,000 items of evidence, with not one to the contrary, to carry out their own agreement.
I had another case in which half-a-dozen check-weighers who have been doing their work for the last 13 weeks have not received one penny in wages, for the simple reason that the companies will not make the deductions on behalf of the check-weighers, such as has been done for 20 or 30 years at those collieries. If those check-weighers put down their tools and said, "We are not going to work unless wages are paid," every one of the colliers would say, "And we will not continue to produce coal unless we have someone to cheek the weight of the coal." The Communist element in my district are saying, "Put down your tools. Bring the colliers out," and I am preaching patience, moderation and good relationship. Employers in this country have to change their attitude, and not merely talk about the new spirit in industry but introduce it; they must be prepared to reciprocate to the full, not merely in words but in deeds, the spirit which a number of men in the Labour movement are seeking to import into the mining industry as well as other industries. For that reason I hope that the influence of this House of Commons will be used in the right direction, because, after all, on the benches opposite sit the great captains of industry, and the representatives of the Federation of British Industries, men with immense influence upon the employing classes, and if they care to use that influence they can change completely this attitude of hostility that exists and which is going to bear evil fruit unless it is changed. I, therefore, appeal to right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite to use their influence in that direction. I would say to the Government also, and I submit it is a grave national responsibility, that they should exert all their influence to ensure a change of policy on the part of the coal owners in the future.
With reference to unemployment, I would like to divide that under two heads. First of all, I would like the Government to look at the way the miners are being treated at the present time. Apart altogether from finding other employment for them, we have to-day, in
the mining industry, collieries which were closed 12 or 18 months ago and there is no other employment. I can give typical cases from my own constituency. I can give a typical case in the Rhondda, Valley of a colliery in which the men have worked from boyhood and they are anxious to obtain employment. They have tried everywhere to get work and yet their names are struck off the list. I could give other instances. I submit that the Government are not helping in any shape or form by treating these genuinely unemployed miners in this manner. Surely, nothing can be gained, even politically, by reducing your live register not by finding employment but by merely striking these men off benefit? You merely say to these men, "Go to the board of guardians." These men have not been able to find employment and they do not deserve such treatment.
I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he should get his representative to consult with the miners' representative in each of these cases, and unless it can be shown that the men are idle when there is an opportunity of employment they should be treated as genuinely unemployed, and they should be given their proper benefit. As to the effect of the arrangements which we have entered into on the question of employment it is true that we started with 500,000 to 600,000 and the number has gone up to over 1,000,000, but the number employed will continue to increase for a short time only. What I want the Government to take into account is not what we have in the nature of unemployed miners at the present time but what we shall have a year from now.
Unless the Government will face the real cause of the trouble in the mining industry and endeavour to solve the coal problem, as certain as I am standing en the floor of this House, 12 months from now, whatever takes place, unless we get a big American miners' strike, there will be fewer men employed in the mining industry than at present, and in 18 months or two years from now there will be hundreds of thousands less employed than are employed at the present time. The problem we have to deal with has been present with us for very many years. As long as you have an industry in which you have big blocks of output, scores of millions of tons of output,
separated from other scores of millions of tons in the matter of cost of production by from 5s. to 10s. per ton, and you have running with that the scramble for the trade, and intensified competition, you are always going to have that portion of the industry unable to hold its own. What have you got at the present time? You have got a market because we have had a seven months' stoppage and stocks have been depleted and have to be replenished, and when that has taken place, and you have got back to normal markets with the abnormal output which will result from the longer working day, we shall have an intensified form of competition which will make it impossible for the high-cost collieries in this country to survive the ordeal upon which they have embarked. That has been the problem ever since 1916. When the Government took over the mines even during the War under control they had to find a pool in order to keep those high-cast collieries working and they could not have kept them even in the War without taking 15 per cent. from the profitable undertakings in order to keep them alive.
In 1921, when the slump came, they tried to keep them going by sending scores of thousands of miners to the boards of guardians, who, after having put in a full week's work and received a week's wages, had not as much money to take home as would be got by going on the board of guardians' relief lists and they had to go to the guardians. Evidence was submitted to the Commission by Sir Ernest Cowers that had it not been for the gap which had been created in 1921 on account of the stoppage and in 1922 by the big American strike and in 1923 by the occupation of the Ruhr, these collieries would have gone out of employment in either of those years. In 1925 when they were kept alive by the subsidy and an attempt is being made to keep them alive at the present time by the longer working day and lower wages, and as soon as you have got over the point where the effect of the depleted stocks due to the stoppage has been reached, we shall have exactly the same conditions in the mining industry as we had in 1925 when the subsidy was first put on, except that we shall have it in an intensified state due to the fact that we have an increased working day.
That being the case, I really make an earnest appeal to the Government to face the problem now that there is no stoppage and while the miners are sill at work—to face the facts. Unless that is done now, we must make provision for a huge army of unemployed who in a year's time or fifteen or eighteen months at the outside, will be coming out of those mines which cannot continue in production and more and more the unemployment will go up by leaps and bounds. That is a prospect which neither the Government nor the nation, any more than the miners themselves, can look upon with equanimity. It is because we realise that that will be the inevitable outcome of the policy being pursued that we urge the Government to take it seriously into consideration and to see if it is not possible to apply the only possible solution to the coal problem which will prevent a big addition to the ranks of those already unemployed.
Is it too much to ask that the Government will exert their influence in these two directions—that they will, first of all, see that fair play is given to those who are at present unemployed, who are being struck off the list for no sort of justifiable reason, who are not offered employment, who cannot find employment, and are anxious to get into work? I hope the Government will change their policy with respect to these men. With regard to

the broader question of the reconstruction and reorganisation of the coal trade, I hope that now, when there is time and when there is peace, they will take that job in hand. If they do, then a year hence, instead of having a big increase in the number of unemployed, we may hope for a movement in the direction of curtailing it, by the simple process of using the credit of those highly efficiently-equipped concerns to enable more coal to be produced at a lower cost, and give us a larger margin of low-cost output. That is the only solution of this problem. If it be not carried into effect, nothing can prevent very many men being unemployed. I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be any opposition to this Motion. All that it asks is that the Government be urged to do all that they can to find work outside the industry where they cannot find employment in the coal trade, and, in the next place, it asks the House to declare that it is regrettable that there should be a policy of victimisation. A policy that is making for bad relationships in the industry is an undesirable state of affairs, and ought to be remedied as speedily as possible.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 224.

Division No. 30.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Fenby, T. D.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Forrest, W.
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kennedy, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Gibbins, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gillett, George M.
Kirkwood. O.


Baker, Walter
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, George


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawrence, Susan


Barnes, A.
Greenall, T.
Lawson, John James


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lee, F.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, T.


Bondfield, Margaret
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Broad, F. A.
Groves, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Bromfield, William
Grundy, T. W.
Mackinder, W.


Bromley, J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacLaren, Andrew


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Buchanan, Q.
Hardle, George D.
March, S.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Harris, Percy A.
Montague, Frederick


Charleton, H. C.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Clowes, S.
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon, John R.
Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palln, John Henry


Connolly, M.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cove, W. G.
Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.


Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersdeld)
Purcell, A. A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Day, Colonel Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rlley, Bon


Dannlson, R.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Ritson, J.


Duncan, C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks,W.R.,Elland)


Dunnieo, H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rose, Frank H.


England, Colonel A.
Janes, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Scrymgeour, E.
Taylor, R. A.
Welsh, J. C


Scurr, John
Thomas, Rt. Hon. Jamas H. (Derby)
 Westwood, J.


Sexton, James
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Whiteley, W.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernest
Wiggins, William Martin


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Townend, A. E.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Snell, Harry
Varley, Frank B.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Vlant, S, P,
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Wallhead, Richard C.
Windsor, Walter


Stamford, T. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wright, W.


Stephen, Campbell
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney



Sullivan, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sutton, J. E.
Wellock, Wilfred
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Fielden, E. B.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Ford, Sir P. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Alnsworth, Major Charles
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Maltland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Albery, Irving James
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Capt. D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Apsley, Lord
Gates, Percy
Meller, R. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Merriman, F. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bennett, A. J,
Grant, Sir J. A.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bethel, A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Betterton, Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greenwood, Rt. Hn.Slr H.(W'th'e'w,E)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Neville, R. J.


Brass, Captain W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pennefather, Sir John


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.)
Penny, Frederick George


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Philipson, Mabel


Bullock, Captain M.
Harland, A.
Pilcher, G.


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hawke, John Anthony
Radford, E. A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ralne, W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(0xf'd,Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur p.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ropner, Major L.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Holland, Sir Arthur
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rye, F. G.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Salmon, Major I.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cope, Major William
Hume, Sir G. H,
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Couper, J. B.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Sandon, Lord


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Jacob, A. E.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kins'dine, C.)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Llndsey,(Gainsbro)
Lamb, J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron


Davies, Maj, Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lougher, L.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Col. Hon.G.F. (Will'sden, E.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dixey, A. C.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Storry-Deans, R.


Ellis, R. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
McDonnell, Colonel Han. Angus
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maclntyre, Ian
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)




Styles, Captain H. W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wise, Sir Fredric


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Withers, John James


Tasker, R Inigo.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Womersley, W. J.


Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wattt, Dr. T.
Wood, E. (Chester, Stalyb'gs & Hyde)


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wragg, Herbert


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Vaughan-Morgan, Col, K. P.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Waddington, R.
Wilton, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wallace, Captain O. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Mr. Wardlaw-Milne and Colone Lambert Ward.


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

Several hon. Members rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

The remaining orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]